Contents

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes

Preface
About the Author
1 The Discipline of International Relations
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
NATURE AND SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Nature
Theories and Methodologies
International Relations or International Politics?
Definition of International Relations
Scope of International Relations
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN EVERYDAY LIFE
QUESTIONS
2 Important Theories in International Relations
WHAT IS A ‘THEORY’ AND WHY IS IT REQUIRED?
THEORIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
LIBERAL THEORY (INCLUDING PLURALISM)
Neo-liberalism
Pluralist Theory
An Evaluation of Liberal Theory (including Pluralism)
REALIST THEORY
An Evaluation of Realist Theory
MARXIST THEORY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
An Evaluation of Marxist Theory of International Relations
WORLD SYSTEM THEORY
An Evaluation of World System Theory
GAME THEORY
Prisoner’s Dilemma: An Example of the Zero-Sum Game
An Evaluation of Game Theory
DECISION-MAKING THEORY
SYSTEMS THEORY
An Evaluation of Systems Theory in International Relations 42
COMMUNICATION THEORY
An Evaluation of Communication Theory
POSTMODERNISM
An Evaluation of Postmodernism in International Relations
CONSTRUCTIVISM
An Evaluation of Constructivism in International Relations
FEMINISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Conclusion
QUESTIONS
3 Basic Concepts
STATE AS AN ACTOR IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
NON-STATE ACTORS
Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
Inter-governmental Organizations
International Non-governmental Organizations
NATIONAL POWER
Elements of National Power
Geography
Population
Natural Resources
Popular Support
National Character
Technology and Military Strength
Ideology
Leadership
BALANCE OF POWER
Characteristics of Balance of Power
Methods of Balance of Power
Divide and Rule
Compensations
Armaments
Alliances
BALANCE OF TERROR
IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM
NEOCOLONIALISM
Methods of Neocolonialism
RACISM
QUESTIONS
4 Concepts and Techniques of Foreign Policy
NATIONAL INTEREST
DIPLOMACY
Definition
Main Tasks of Diplomacy
Functions of Diplomats
Representation
Negotiation
Reporting
Protection of the Interest of the Nation and Its Citizens in
Foreign Land
Open and Secret Diplomacy
Economic Diplomacy
Future of Diplomacy
PROPAGANDA
Definition
Techniques
Methods of Presentation
Techniques of Gaining Attention
Devices for Gaining Response
Methods of Gaining Acceptance
MILITARY AND FOREIGN POLICY
Making of Foreign Policy
Head of the Government and the Foreign Minister
The Legislature
Interest Groups and Lobbies
Public Opinion
QUESTIONS
5 The United Nations
THE ORIGIN OF THE UN
IMPORTANT ORGANS OF THE UN
The General Assembly
Composition and Voting
Major Functions of the General Assembly
Evaluation of the Role of the General Assembly
The Security Council
Composition
Voting
Major Functions of the Security Council
Evaluation of the Role of the Security Council
The Economic and Social Council
Composition
Functions and Powers of the ECOSOC
Evaluation of the Role of the ECOSOC
The Secretariat
Composition
Powers and Functions of the Secretariat
The Secretary-General
Appointment of the Secretary-General
Functions of the Secretary-General
A Brief Evaluation of the Role of the Secretary-General
International Court of Justice (The World Court)
Composition
Functions of the Court
An Evaluation of the World Court
COLLECTIVE SECURITY
The Concept and Its Application
Limitations of Collective Security
UN PEACEKEEPING
UN PEACEMAKING
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UNITED NATIONS
UN REFORM PROPOSALS
Minor Reforms
Major Reforms
Other Reforms
QUESTIONS
6 Other Inter-governmental Organizations
NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT (NAM)
Origin of the NAM
Membership of the NAM
Organizational Structure of the NAM
Relevance of the NAM in Today’s World
COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
Origin
Membership
Structure
Head of the Organization
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
Commonwealth Secretariat
Main Objectives and Activities
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
Origin
Membership
Structure
Civilian (Political) Structures
Military Structure
Agencies and Organizations
Functions of the NATO: A Critical Appraisal
QUESTIONS
7 Cold War Politics and Beyond
ORIGIN OF THE COLD WAR
EVOLUTION OF THE COLD WAR
Cold War in the 1940s
Cold War in the 1950s
Cold War in the 1960s
Cold War in the 1970s
Cold War in the 1980s
CAUSES OF THE END OF THE COLD WAR
ETHNICITY AND NATIONALISM IN EAST EUROPE
Ethnic Nationalism in Former Czechoslovakia
Ethnic Nationalism in Former Yugoslavia
Ethnic Problem in the Russian Federation
POST–COLD WAR WORLD ORDER
QUESTIONS
8 Security and Nuclear Issues After the Second World War
THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY
Important Articles of the NPT
India, Pakistan and the NPT
THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY
Important Provisions in the CTBT
CTBT: The Current Position
CTBT and India
THE FMCT AND THE MTCR
FMCT: An Unfinished Story
MTCR: Another Step Towards Nonproliferation
MTCR Guidelines
MTCR: The Balance Sheet
WMDS AND THE PRESENT WORLD
QUESTIONS
9 Regional Organizations
SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION 
(SAARC)
Origin and Members
Objectives of the SAARC
Administrative Structure of the Organization
SAARC Summits
Agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA)
The SAARC Social Charter
Future of the SAARC
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN)
Origin and Members
Objectives
Organizational Structure
Other Collaborative Forums
ASEAN Free Trade Area and Related Free Trade Agreements
The ASEAN Charter
The ASEAN: An Evaluation
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Origin
Membership and Organizational Structure
The European Union Today
The Future of the Union
THE AFRICAN UNION
Origin and Membership
Organizational Structure
The AU (and the Former OAU) at Work
An Evaluation of the AU
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA)
Origin and Members
Objectives
The NAFTA and Regional Trade
Controversies Over the Agreement
THE FUTURE OF THE NAFTA
QUESTIONS
10 International Political Economy
FROM BRETTON WOODS TO THE WTO
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Objectives and Membership
Organizational Structure and Voting
Main Functions of the WTO
Assisting and Developing Transitional Economies
Providing Specialized Help for Export Promotion
Extending Cooperation in Global Economic Policy-making
Monitoring Implementation of the Agreements Covered
Maintaining the Basic Principles of International Trade
WTO: An Appraisal
ECONOMIC ORDER OF THE PRESENT WORLD
The Divergent Economic Order
The Role of MNCs
The North–South Divide
Problems of the South
IR Theories and the North–South Divide
FUTURE OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC ORDER
QUESTIONS
11 Foreign Policies of Major Nations: India, The United States,
China, Russia, Japan, England
PART I
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY
Origin and Philosophical Base
Basic Principles of India’s Foreign Policy
Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy: The Cold War Period
Jawaharlal Nehru (1947–64)
Lal Bahadur Shastri (1964–66) and Indira Gandhi (1966–77
and 1979–84)
Morarji Desai (1977–79) and Charan Singh (1979)
Rajiv Gandhi (1984–89)
V. P. Singh (1989–90) and Chandra Sekhar (1990–91)
India’s Foreign Policy After the Cold War
Narasimha Rao (1991–96): The First Indian Prime Minister
after the Cold War
H. D. Deve Gowda (1996–97) and I. K. Gujral (1997–98)
Atal Behari Vajpayee (1998–99 and 1999–2004)
Manmohan Singh (2004–09 and 2009–)
PART II
FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Origin and Evolution
US Foreign Policy After the Cold War
US–India Relations After the Cold War
PART III
FOREIGN POLICY OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Origin and Evolution
Foreign Policy of China Under Mao Zhe Dong (1949–76)
China’s Foreign Policy After Mao (1977–91)
China’s Foreign Policy After the Cold War
China–India Relations After the Cold War
PART IV
FOREIGN POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The Post–Cold War Dilemma
The Yeltsin Period: An Incoherent Beginning
The Putin Presidency: A Resurgent Russia
The Medvedev Presidency
Russia–India Relations After the Cold War
PART V
FOREIGN POLICY OF JAPAN AFTER THE COLD WAR
JAPAN–INDIA RELATIONS AFTER THE COLD WAR
PART VI
FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND AFTER THE COLD WAR
ENGLAND–INDIA RELATIONS AFTER THE COLD WAR
Notes
QUESTIONS
12 Recent Issues in International Relations
GLOBALIZATION
Meaning of the Term
Globalization: Different Views
Globalization and Sovereignty of the State
ENVIRONMENT
Global Warming and Climate Change
Demographic Issues
 Environment and International Peace
International Efforts to Safeguard the Environment
ENERGY
Energy and International Relations Today
TERRORISM
Definition and Short History
Types of Terrorism
Political Terrorism
Ethnic Terrorism
Religious Terrorism
State Terrorism
International Terrorism
The Changing Nature of Contemporary Terrorism
Terrorism and International Relations Today
Notes
QUESTIONS
Bibliography

About the Author

Aneek Chatterjee, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Political

Science at Presidency College, Kolkata, India. He has written three
books, and edited one; and contributed research articles in leading
national and international journals. He has presented research
papers at international academic conferences in France, Japan,
Slovenia and India; and visited Holland, Belgium, Austria and
Hungary on academic work. He has received the Fulbright-Nehru
Visiting Lecturer Fellowship for 2010–11 to teach at the University
of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA. He also received the ICCR
Visiting Chair in Political Science/International Relations to teach
in reputed foreign universities. Dr Chatterjee sits in the Editorial
Boards of two international/national research journals.

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes

Tables
5.1 Secretaries-General of the United Nations
5.2 Ongoing UN Peacekeeping Operations (1948–2008)
6.1 NAM Summits: 1961–2009
6.2 NATO Secretaries-General Since 1952
9.1 SAARC Summits: 1985–2010
9.2 ASEAN Summits and ‘Informal Summits’: 1976–2010
10.1 Income Disparity Among Nations in the Present World
12.1 Important International Conferences on Environmental
Protection
12.2 Increase in World Marketed Energy Consumption: 2006–
2030
12.3 Region-wise Per Capita Energy Consumption in the World:
1990–2005
12.4 Per Capita Energy Consumption of Select Countries:
1990–2005

Figures
5.1 UN Charter-based Bodies on Human Rights
5.2 UN Treaty-based Bodies on Human Rights
12.1 Major Energy Resources of the World

Boxes
2.1 Liberal Theory in IR: Basic Assumptions and Leading
Theorists
2.2 Neo-liberal Theory in IR: Basic Assumptions and Leading
Theorists
2.3 Pluralist Theory in IR: Basic Features and Leading
Theorists
2.4 Six Principles of Political Realism as Advocated by
Morgenthau
2.5 Realist Theory in IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists
2.6 Marxist Theory of IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists
2.7 World System Theory: Basic Features and Leading
Theorists
2.8 Game Theory: Basic Features and Leading Theorists
2.9 Decision-making Theory: Basic Assumptions and Leading
Theorists
2.10 Systems Theory in IR: Basic Features and Leading
Theorists
2.11 Communication Theory: Basic Features and Leading
Theorists
2.12 Postmodernism in IR: Basic Features and Leading
Theorists
2.13 Constructivism: Basic Features and Leading Theorists
2.14 Feminism in IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists
6.1 Current Members of the NAM
6.2 Observers and Guests of the NAM
6.3 Members of the Commonwealth (2010)
6.4 NATO Member-Countries
6.5 NATO Partner-Countries
9.1 Major Reforms of the EU Introduced by Lisbon Treaty
(2009)
 9.2 Current Member-States of the African Union
10.1 Current Members of the WTO

Preface

International Relations (IR) is a changing and dynamic discipline.

Today, the discipline is different in many ways from the discipline
of IR immediately after the Second World War. The impact of
globalization or terrorism on IR was almost negligible during that
period. Moreover, the post–Cold War World order has thrown
many challenges to the students of IR. Is the post–Cold War
international order a unipolar or a multipolar one? Is globalization
eroding the notion of state sovereignty? What would be the impact
of energy crisis on world politics? Is the world moving towards
economic integration? Is China going to pose an effective challenge
to the might of the United States? What is the future of the SAARC
or the NAM? What are the major theories in contemporary IR?
These and many other pertinent issues require proper analyses in
order to understand the nature of the discipline today. This book is
a humble attempt at studying such issues. It is primarily meant for
students of International Relations in colleges and universities. It
would also help civil service aspirants and others interested in the
discipline.

In the course of writing this book, I got immense help from several
persons and institutions. All members of Pearson Education need
special mention in this regard. I wish to particularly thank Praveen
Dev, Debjani M. Dutta, Barun Kumar Sarkar and Arani Banerjee of
Pearson Education for supporting this project from time to time. I
also thank my colleagues and students in the Department of
Political Science who raised many interesting questions and
debated with me on many issues for providing intellectual stimuli
that helped me in the course of writing. The excellent library
facilities of Presidency College always boosted my desire to work
for the book. My wife Sarbani and daughter Prerna, besides
providing mental support, also helped me in computer work, which
proved very helpful at times for a tiring person. My sincere thanks
to them. Needless to say that the author is responsible for any error
or omission in the book. If this book provides any help to students
and teachers, I will consider my efforts successful.

ANEEK CHATTERJEE

1
The Discipline of International Relations

International Relations (IR) is an important academic discipline

and constitutes a significant area of modern social science. It is
primarily considered as the study of the relations among nation-
states. But this view is oversimplified, because contemporary
international relations cover a very broad subject-matter. Yet, for a
basic understanding this view is helpful. The complex nature of
contemporary IR is analysed later in this chapter. But before going
into the details of its nature and scope, a look into the history and
development of the study of IR is necessary. This chapter begins
with a short history of international relations as an academic
discipline, as well as a practice of maintaining relations among
political systems, states or pre-states.

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

As an academic discipline, international relations is not very old.

Its systematic study started after the First World War, and
universities in West Europe and the United States (US) introduced
separate courses on it from the 1920s. But as relations among
states or pre-state political systems, the subject is very old. As the
relation among nation-states, IR is believed to have developed with
the Peace Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which is considered as the
creator of modern nationstates in Europe. But before the birth of
modern nation-states, pre-state political systems had developed in
different parts of the world. Relations among these pre-state
political systems could be viewed, rather incoherently, as the
beginning of international relations. But this history of IR is a
disputed one because the nature and pattern of interactions among
pre-state political systems, or for that matter among the nation-
states after the Treaty of Westphalia, raise controversies. It is now
generally believed that immediately after the treaty was signed, no
structured pattern of international relations originated. And it was
not before the French Revolution in 1789 that systematic
interactions among nation-states or other types of political systems
had developed. If the more recent history of IR—since the Treaty of
Westphalia—is so controversial, it is not difficult to imagine that
pre-state IR is subject to more disputes. Some of the known pre-
state political systems that existed before the treaty were: (1)
Sumerian city-states like Kish, Karsa, Ur, Lagash; and oriental city-
states like Jericho, that existed before 2500 BC; (2) Greek city-
states; and (3) large empires in the West and the East. The nature
and extent of interactions among prestate political systems differed
from time to time, making it difficult to systematize the history of
IR in ancient times. Occassional and contradictory references to
sporadic diplomatic ties among pre-state political systems did not
help either in knowing the history of pre-state IR. It is believed
that the Treaty of Westphalia encouraged the rise of the
independent nation-states by recognizing territorial sovereignty.
The treaty also led to the institutionalization of diplomacy and
armies. But immediately after Westphalia, no structured pattern of
international relations had developed. International relations, in a
modern sense, started to develop when the European nation-state
system, born out of the treaty, was transplanted later in the two
Americas, Africa and Asia, through the routes of colonialism.

The nation-state system that emerged after Westphalia had

undergone a long process of evolution and changes to assume the
present nature. During its long process of evolution, this system
was influenced, strengthened, and also affected, by several
developments: socio-political, economic and scientific. The rise of
capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, the
American War of Independence, and colonialism influenced this
evolving process till the end of the nineteenth century. In more
recent times, since the beginning of the twentieth century, the two
world wars; the decolonization process; nationalist movements in
Asia, Africa and Latin America; globalization; postmodernism; and
IT (Information Technology) revolution exerted tremendous
influence over the nation-state system. With the passage of time,
nation-states have changed in character to keep pace with the
changing times; but their basic nature has remained the same since
the Treaty of Westphalia: it is a sovereign territorial unit of people
sharing some common feelings, loosely identified as nationalism.

International relations as a system of interactions among nation-

states has also undergone changes from time to time, yet its basic
nature has remained the same—it is a system where nation-states
mainly interact and make the system operative. As an academic
discipline, IR is mainly concerned with the study of such
interactions that have assumed multi-dimensional character since
the last century. Although primarily a study of the interplay among
nation-states, the subject is no more confined only to states; it also
deals with other non-state actors and their important roles in
international politics and economy. Today IR is also concerned
with new and emerging issues like environment, globalization,
terrorism, and energy. The discipline also analyses the significance
of non-state actors like international organizations, multinational
corporations, and non-governmental organizations. The
importance of these non-state actors, along with nation-states and
issues like environment, globalization, energy, and terrorism,
gradually came to acquire a significant place in the study of
international relations after the First World War. Thus
International Relations appeared as a structured and
comprehensive academic discipline after the First World War; and
as a separate branch of study, the subject was offered in European
and American universities from the 1920s.

The study of IR as an academic discipline evolved further and

matured significantly after the Second World War. With the
process of decolonization almost complete, and the appearance of
new states in Asia, Africa and Latin America, contemporary
international politics assumed a new dimension after the war, a
period when IR as an academic discipline progressed significantly.
With the end of the Balance of Power system that had existed for
three centuries, the post-Second World War international order
was different; it saw the emergence of two non-European nuclear
(weapon) superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, instead of the
earlier five to six major nonnuclear (weapon) European powers.
From the end of the Second World War (1945) to the end of the
Cold War (1991), several issues gained prominence in international
relations. These are: strengthened existence of non-state actors as
significant players in international relations; energy; environment;
terrorism; globalization; and communication revolution. These
issues helped to shape a new global order vastly different from
those of the past. This new order in effect made the study of
international relations more dynamic, complex, and broader in
scope.

Although the world became unipolar after the Cold War, with the
US remaining the only superpower, the present international order
has become more interdependent due to the spread of
globalization, including international trade, information
technology revolution, terrorism, and environmental degradation.
States are increasingly seeking cooperation from other states, as
well as non-state actors, to adjust and compete in this world where
states are largely dependent on one another. As an academic
discipline, international relations is also addressing these issues
with more sincerity and articulation after the Cold War.

NATURE AND SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Nature

Is International Relations an independent academic discipline?

The controversy that haunted modern international relations for a
long time since its emergence in the 1920s, revolved around its
status as an independent academic discipline. Some scholars were
unwilling to recognize it as a separate, autonomous academic
discipline, and thought it to be largely dependent on subjects such
as political science and history. The controversy that existed for
more than four decades, till the 1960s, seems to have died down
now with IR getting the recognition of an independent academic
discipline. An autonomous academic discipline requires, mainly, a
systematic body of theory, appropriate methodology, and a distinct
subject matter. International Relations today is capable of meeting
these criteria to exist and flourish as an autonomous discipline.

Without entering into this controversy (it does not exist anymore),
it would be pertinent to identify the distinctive character of IR as
an academic discipline. If political science is concerned with the
‘politics’, both formal and informal, of, say, India, Britain, China,
or Australia; IR would be more concerned with the relationship
between India and Britain, or China and Britain, or Australia and
India, or among all of them. These relations may not be confined to
political aspects only; they may cover economic, security, cultural,
or environmental issues. In other words, an IR scholar would not
normally study the constitution or party system of any state; he
would rather go for (international) relations of this particular state
with others. A political scientist would be interested in the
Government of India, or China, and its politics; but an IR scholar
would be more interested in the foreign policies of India and China
and their impact on relations between the two countries, rather
than the domestic political systems in both countries.

Although this separation is not always absolute, as both the

political scientist and the IR scholar may have to enter the ‘other’s
area’ for the sake of a proper study, but these ‘visits’ are now more
for scholarly inputs rather than helpless dependence. And such
inter-disciplinary visits are prerequisites for matured academic
work. Similarly, IR scholars’ areas of interest would ultimately
differ from those of economists or historians, and they may follow
different methodologies to study their subject. Interactions
between IR and other social science disciplines have increased over
the years, but the former’s ‘dependence’ on the latter has been
considerably minimized, thus helping it to emerge as an
autonomous discipline with a distinct set of theories, methodology,
and subject matter.
Theories and Methodologies

It is believed that there are four major theoretical traditions in the

discipline of IR: liberalism, realism, theories based on
international society approach, and theories rooted in
international political economy. Recent approaches to counter
earlier theories constitute the ‘post-positivist’ position in the
discipline. Chapter 2 makes an elaborate analysis of the major
theories in IR, based on these four theoretical traditions. However,
it may be noted here that these theories have strengthened the
claim of IR as an autonomous discipline. Methodologies in IR can
be broadly classified into four types: traditional or classical,
behavioural, positivist, and post-positivist. While the traditional
methodology revolved around historical, philosophical, moral or
legal questions, the behavioural methodology wanted to base IR on
scientific analysis. Traditional or classical methodology drew
heavily from other disciplines like history, political science,
philosophy, and international law. It was based on knowledge and
experience, rather than on hypotheses that could be tested. The
behavioural method, on the other hand, wanted a systematic study
of IR based on ‘scientism’, that is, use of appropriate scientific
methods to study the subject. Behaviouralists wanted verifiable
hypotheses and quantifiable data. They were concerned more with
explanatory rather than normative approach. An example may
bring out the difference between the two methodologies more
clearly: classical methodology would be happy with the statement
that ‘democracy leads to peace’, as this proposition is based on
experience; behavioural methodology, on the other hand, would
raise the question ‘does democracy lead to peace?’ and try to find
an answer through verifiable data obtained from different
democracies.

The positivist methodology in IR carries the legacy of

behaviouralism, in more sophisticated ways. This method asserts
on a precise, empirical approach based on logically related
hypotheses that can be tested through scientific techniques, by
using, if required, statistical or mathematical analyses. The ‘game
theory’ in IR, analysed in Chapter 2, is an example of positivist
methodology. The post-positivist methodology draws inspiration
from the critique of behavioural and positivist approaches, and
wants to assert that IR is not merely a field of techniques and
meaningless scientism; it is also a vast area of knowledge without
any short and specific agenda. Post-positivism is a very big
umbrella that shelters several approaches like critical, postmodern,
constructivist, and normative approaches. One area of post-
positivism, the normative approach, even wishes to revive the
classical methodology in international relations. More details on IR
theories and methodologies would be provided in the next chapter.
Methodologies in this subject are varied and constitute a
fascinating area of study; and they also substantiate the claim of IR
as an academic discipline.
International Relations or International Politics?
Sometimes the terms ‘international relations’ and ‘international
politics’ are used interchangeably to analyse issues related to the
discipline. Such overlapping creates confusion among the young
readers regarding the ‘name’ or ‘title’ of the discipline. It must,
therefore, be made clear at the outset that the term international
relations has been globally accepted and recognized as the
appropriate name for the discipline, as this term is broader in
scope and more comprehensive than the term international
politics. The former covers a vast range of interactions among
states beyond political relations, and it also covers other non-state
actors and their contributions to the international order.
Conversely, the latter refers only to the political events and aspects
of the world, and may loosely refer to political interactions among
nation-states. As stated at the beginning of this chapter,
international relations is primarily known as relations among
states; but this view is oversimplified and inadequate. This
discussion naturally leads the reader to expect a proper definition
of the discipline.
Definition of International Relations

Like many other social science disciplines, it is not easy to define

International Relations in a few words. Although states and their
interactions constitute the primary focus of IR, the discipline is
concerned with many more issues like non-state actors,
international political economy, international security,
international environment, globalization, terrorism, area studies,
and military studies. Relations among states, in a broader sense,
cover many such issues, yet leave out many more to be analysed
separately. For instance, in a broader sense, international political
economy, international security, globalization or environment, to
cite a few, are somewhat linked to interactions among states; yet
these issues may go beyond the sphere of relations among states.
Non-state actors may also influence these issues profoundly.
Therefore, IR being viewed as interactions among states is
oversimplification, though helpful for a primary understanding. A
broader and more comprehensive definition of the subject would
be this: International Relations as a branch of social science is
concerned with relations among nations, and other issues like
non-state actors, international political economy, international
security, foreign policies of major powers, globalization,
 international terrorism, international environment, and area
studies. This definition indicates that the scope and subject matter
of IR has become vast today, unlike earlier times when IR was
mainly concerned with nation-states and their interactions.

Scope of International Relations

Like many other social science disciplines, IR has no definite

boundary, and contemporary IR covers a very broad area of study.
Creation of artificial and mandatory boundaries for the sake of
making a discipline autonomous is not a necessity in any modern
social science discipline, because inter-disciplinary exchanges can
make all the disciplines enriched. IR also lacks specificity, and
contemporary IR, particularly after the Second World War, has
broadened its scope beyond limitations. From a preliminary study
of government-to-government relations, the scope of IR has
widened to include almost all aspects of international politics, and
many areas of international political economy, international
security, and environment. In 1947, the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) in the US identified five major areas of study in
IR: (1) the nature and operation of the nation-state system; (2)
factors that affect the power of a state; (3) the international
position and foreign policies of the great powers; (4) the history of
recent international relations; and (5) the building of a more stable
international order. IR is now not confined only to these five areas;
it has moved far and beyond.

A careful analysis of the report presented by the CFR in 1947 shows

that many important issues covered by contemporary IR were not
included in the report. For instance, the role and significance of
non-state actors were not mentioned in its list; neither were
mentioned the importance of international political economy (IPE)
and environmental issues. But these issues and many others have
gained prominence in IR over the years. Today, the study of
international relations broadly covers the following areas.
1. Nation-states and their relations: The operation of the nation-state system and relations among
nation-states have always made international politics possible, and constituted the basic subject-matter of
IR. These would continue to remain the primary area of study in the discipline.
2. Non-state actors: The importance of non-state actors in the study of IR has been increasing over
the years. Non-state actors like the multinational corporations (MNC), international non-governmental
organizations (INGO), and the inter-governmental organizations (IGO) exert considerable influence in
 today’s international relations. So, these non-state actors are important ingredients of the study of
contemporary IR.
3. International political economy (IPE): International political economy is the study of
international relations with the help of economic activities and analyses. With the onset of globalization
from the mid-1980s, a renewed interest in IPE has developed among scholars. Along with political and
security angles, the study of international relations is frequently analysed today with the help of economic
views.
4. International security: Security has always remained the primary concern of nationstates. The
concern for security had led to war and peace in the past, and would continue to promote these in the
future. A peaceful international order is always linked to the notion of international security that includes,
among others factors, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and reduction of tension among
states. Studies on war and peace and strategic studies in IR are also related to international security.
5. Foreign policies of important powers: Foreign policies of major and medium powers constitute
important subject-matter of IR because these powers are the driving force in international relations. When
the balance of power system was prevalent, the study of foreign policies of major European powers was
considered important. In contemporary IR, analyses of foreign policies of the US, China, Russia, Japan and
India may be useful as these states have become major actors in recent times.
6. Globalization: This primarily refers to economic activities which have serious impact on political
and social spheres. With the ascendance of liberal economy over mercantilist economy since the early
1980s, the term globalization has assumed increasing popularity and usage, and become significant in the
study of IR. Although globalization and IPE are closely related, these are not identical, as subsequent
chapters in this book would reveal.
7. International environment: Environmental issues have now assumed greater significance in the
study of IR than ever before because industrialization and technological progress have enhanced concerns
for environmental safety all over the world. Environmental issues have made states across the world highly
interdependent today because carbon emissions from industrial plants in one part of the world may affect
other parts; or shortage of river water in a state may lead it to war with its neighbouring states. A stable and
peaceful international order is dependent on environmental issues in today’s world.
8. International terrorism: Terrorist activities involving citizens of more than one country and
having transnational impacts constitute international terrorism, an important area of study in IR. It is also
referred to as ‘cross border’ terrorism. International peace and security are closely related to this issue.
9. Area studies: Sometimes it becomes rather difficult to study international political, security, or
economic issues from a broader perspective. So area studies have become popular nowadays. Under it, such
issues concerning different areas of the world are taken up separately for analysis. For instance, West Asia,
South Asia or Central Europe may be taken up for exclusive analysis under area studies, which has gained
prominence in contemporary IR with increasing proliferation of regional organizations and free trade areas
(FTA).

The expanding scope of international relations lead to the view,

and also to the controversy, that the discipline is becoming
increasingly unmanageable, and that it lacks a clear conceptual
framework. But this view is born out of pessimism about the
discipline, and is not acceptable. Today, the subject has a definite
and useful theoretical framework to support research in different
areas. The broad scope may actually be helpful for it, because the
varied subject matter may lead to more research and analyses, as
well as greater specialization within the discipline. The broad scope
of political science, physics or history, for that matter, has enriched
these disciplines and helped them to grow further. There is little
rationale therefore to worry about the expanding scope of IR; it
will help the discipline to mature into a well-defined and enriched
branch of modern social science.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Students and the literate section of the society sometimes nurture a

feeling that international relations is far away not only from daily
life, but also from domestic politics. They take IR as a subject of
interest for governments and leaders, where an ordinary man has
no role to play. They also think that it deals with issues which are
‘international’ in character, and are therefore remote from their
private life, and even from national politics. But this idea is far
from reality. IR is very much linked to domestic politics, as well as
to our daily life. Its study not only enriches our academic
knowledge and broadens our views about global affairs, it also
helps us to understand daily life and domestic politics.

International security and international political economy, among

other issues of IR, are closely linked to our daily life. A war, for
instance, would affect our daily life profoundly. Our movements
may be restricted, our freedom to turn on the lights in our houses
may be curbed, and market prices may soar, affecting the normal
rhythm of daily life. So, not only students of IR but every citizen
would value the existence of peace in regional and international
politics. Further, if the price of petroleum increases in the world
market, our daily life would be affected because our kitchens would
suffer as well due to the enhanced price of cooking gas. Such price
hike may also become an issue in domestic politics. Moreover, the
prospect of getting jobs after college education would depend on
international economic and political conditions. At the time of
economic recession or political turmoil, there may not be enough
jobs. In an era of globalization, international economic crisis would
definitely affect job prospects around the world, and normalcy in
daily life.

Sometimes treaties among states may affect the life of of the

common people. A bilateral treaty between two countries on
sharing of the water of a certain river, for instance, may have
profound impact on the daily life of the people living by the side of
the river. The ‘Ganga River Water Accord’ between Bangladesh and
India, signed in 1996, affected the life of many people in these two
countries, besides having an impact on the relations between the
two neighbours. Similarly, a multilateral trade or security treaty
may also influence the life of the people living in countries that are
party to the treaty. Nowadays, regional trade agreements like the
SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Agreement) or the AFTA (Asean
Free Trade Agreement) influence the development of the economy
of participating states. Such influence over the national economy
may, in turn, affect our daily life. A bilateral or multilateral treaty
may also fuel controversies in domestic politics. The Ganga River
Water Accord generated controversies in domestic politics in both
Bangladesh and India. The recent India-US Civil Nuclear
Agreement (CNA) became a hot political issue both in Indian and
American politics from 2005, when the treaty was conceived, to
2008, when the CNA was finally achieved. Not only political
parties, but also ordinary citizens in the two countries got involved
in the political debates generated by the agreement. All these
examples provided here are indicative of the impact of
international relations in our daily life.

On the other hand, ordinary citizens also take part, knowingly or

unknowingly, in international relations. When people cast their
votes in parliamentary elections, they actually take an active part in
the formation of the government of their country. The government,
in turn, formulates foreign policies of the country, along with
domestic policies; and tries to protect national interests in world
politics and maintain international relations. Therefore, through
the process of elections, every adult citizen everywhere takes part
not only in domestic politics, but also in international relations.
Further, when people take part in an educational or cultural
project sponsored by organizations like the UNESCO (United
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization), they
associate themselves, perhaps unknowingly, with international
developmental activities. International relations, as perceived in
common parlance, is not a distant subject, far removed from our
daily life. On the contrary, it influences the life of ordinary citizens,
and in turn, also benefits from them. The discipline shares a
symbiotic relationship with the ordinary person.
 QUESTIONS

1. Write a note on the history and evolution of International Relations as an academic discipline.
2. Analyse the nature and scope of International Relations.
3. Bring out the significance of International Relations in everyday life.

2
Important Theories in International Relations

WHAT IS A ‘THEORY’ AND WHY IS IT REQUIRED?

Atheory is an analytical tool for understanding, explaining, and

making predictions about a given subject matter. It is a body of
rules, ideas, principles or techniques to explain a natural event that
can be put to test and is capable of predicting future events. A
theory, in the scientific sense, is an analytic structure designed to
explain a set of empirical observations. It is necessary because it
acts as a guiding principle to systematically structure our
observations. Different persons with different assumptions and
perspectives may observe an event differently. A theory can tell us
what to accept and what to ignore in our observations. Without the
guidance of a theory, observers would be lost in the sea of facts and
data, would be unable to systematically explain and structure their
observations. A theory is unavoidable as it guides observers to
systematically analyse their observations among a huge quantity of
contradictory facts and data. It leads to an accurate and proper
explanation of the subject matter.

THEORIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Theories in International Relations (IR) attempt to provide a

conceptual framework that would help to analyse properly
different aspects of the discipline. Theory-building in IR
proceeded, like in many other disciplines, with historical and
contemporary developments taking place across the world. When
nation-states and their relations were of prime importance,
theories developed around the subject matters of the nation-state,
such as war and peace. Later, when non-state actors and events
came to influence IR thinking, various new theories such as
behaviouralism, globalization and postmodernism concerning
these areas developed. In a similar vein, future events taking place
in the world would provoke many more theories in IR. Theories in
IR, as in other social sciences, sometimes develop around values,
and they may also contain visions about the future world, the
world we prefer to see and live in.

Earlier theorists in IR were concerned with the survival of the

nation-state system, because they had observed the holocaust of
the First World War. IR, which developed as an academic
discipline after the First World War, was mainly preoccupied with
the nation-states and their interactions in its early days. As
frequent wars were threatening the existence of nation-states, early
IR thinkers developed theories on war and the ways to avoid war.
Thus theories on peace also developed alongside theories on war.
Concern with nation-states, their wars, interests, and efforts for
peace gave birth to theories like liberalism and realism. Later,
when nation-states and their interplay became rather stale, new
observations developed in IR. These generated theories like
behaviouralism and globalization, which tried to focus on non-
state issues in the discipline. At a still later stage, post-positivist
theories developed, which sought to challenge all earlier theories.
For instance, postmodernism, which comes under the huge
umbrella of post-positivist theories in international relations,
claims that there cannot be any objective truth in IR; everything in
IR or social sciences is subjective, built around human notions of
values, ideas, emotions and beliefs. So, once these constructions
(known as theories) based on so-called ‘objective truth’ are
deconstructed, their hollowness gets exposed. Liberal ideas of
cooperation and peace, or realistic ideas about conflict of interests,
are actually subjective interpretaions, not to be taken as eternal
‘objective truth’, argue the postmodernists. According to them,
every theory must be deconstructed to arrive at new conclusions.
Although postmodernists were criticized as negativists, they were
able to mark their presence in the sphere of theory-building in IR.
So, theories in IR are numerous and varied as they progressed
alongside courses of development that occurred in the world from
time to time.

An important question is: which theory, among this variegated lot,

is to be accepted as the most important? The answer to this
apparently simple question would lead students of IR to a debate
currently taking place in the discipline. One prominent view is:
since a theory helps us to systematically structure our thinking of
the world, it is necessary to identify the best possible theory that
would help us in this direction. Another view holds that there is no
need to identify any particular theory as ‘important’ or ‘all-
inclusive’ in IR. As theories develop around human observations,
these would be divergent. It is best to seek the help of all these
theories on an ‘issue-based approach’. In a social science
discipline, it is difficult to formulate a ‘principal theory’ applicable
to all problems. Different theories may be required to solve
different kinds of problems. The debate continues among scholars
in the discipline. With these preliminary ideas about theories in IR,
we proceed to discuss some of the major theories in the discipline
of international relations.

LIBERAL THEORY (INCLUDING PLURALISM)

The evolution of liberal philosophy covers a vast period in history—

from the Reformation Movement in the sixteenth century till
today. During this long span of existence, liberalism came under
the influence of various intellectual minds, trends and historical
forces. It shattered the spiritual illusions nurtured carefully by the
feudal society, and gave birth to a scientific and secular view of life.
It helped to remove feudal superstitions and religious dogmatism,
and brought reason, courage, confidence and self-respect. For
these reasons, liberalism was associated with modernization of
society and individual life. Liberal philosophers, beginning with
John Locke in the seventeenth century, emphasized individual
liberty and freedom, which could be sustained in a free civil society
and within an encouraging state that would allow individual liberty
and aspirations to flourish. Individual liberty, believed other
liberal thinkers like Immanuel Kant, J. S. Mill, and T. H. Green to
name a few, could be nurtured best within a cooperative
organization of people, like the state. An individual’s liberty and
freedom are not in contradiction to the creation and existence of
the state; in fact these are ensured by a liberal, less interfering
state. This view of the liberal, encouraging and less-intrusive state
influenced scholars in IR; they developed a liberal tradition in IR
thinking, which was later identified as the liberal theory in
international relations.

Liberal Theory (or Liberalism) in IR is closely associated with the

following ideas: (1) a modern liberal state that encourages human
activities for the development of society; (2) state- and non-state
actors as partners in the development process; (3) a peaceful state
based on democratic principles as the best promoter of a peaceful
international order; (4) free economic systems within the state and
on an international level; and (5) interdependent national and
international orders. Liberalism is a product of history and courses
of development in the international order. Early liberals like
Norman Angell and Woodrow Wilson, who had witnessed the
tragedy of the First World War, were concerned more with a
peaceful international order based on cooperation among nation-
states. This peaceful world order could only be ensured by
peaceful, liberal-democratic nation-states which valued individual
freedom and liberty, and promoted competitive economy. This
period of early liberalism in IR which originated after the First
World War, was also known as utopian or idealist liberalism
because the protagonists believed in an ideal world order free from
conflicts and war. But with the emergence of Nazi Germany, fascist
Italy, and the failure of the League of Nations, idealist liberalism
lost grounds to neo-realist theory (discussed in the next section of
this chapter), which began to emerge from the late 1930s.
However, liberalism in international relations was revived with
renewed vigour after the Second World War, as it generated newer
ideas and thinking which enriched the study of the discipline.

Post-Second World War liberalism in IR developed into a multi-

faceted doctrine. Authors like Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen
(2003) have identified four main branches of post-Second World
War liberalism: sociological liberalism, interdependence
liberalism, institutional liberalism and republican liberalism. The
core idea of sociological liberalism refers to IR as the study of
relations among individuals, groups and societies, in addition to
the study of interactions among national governments. A. J. P.
Taylor, John Burton, and James Rosenau are the leading theorists
of sociological liberalism which views IR also as the study of
‘informal’ relations among groups and societies beyond the more
‘formal’ relations between governments of different nation-states.
Interdependence liberalism believes that with the advancement of
science, technology and trade, nation-states get engaged in a
complex web of interdependence. Liberal theorists like David
Mitrany, Ernst Haas, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye argue that
modern states are welfare—and not security—organizations. The
primary goal of these welfare states is to secure a cooperative
international order based on mutual understanding. Non-state
actors are important instruments of this cooperative international
order which seeks to promote peace, and not conflict, in the world.
Institutional liberalism holds the view that international
institutions like the UNO (United Nations Organization), WTO
(World Trade Organization), NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization), European Union (EU) help to promote cooperation
among states in the world and strengthen efforts for international
peace. Institutional liberals like Volker Rittberger, O. R. Young,
and Robert Keohane hold the view that international institutions
help to reduce the possibilities of anarchy in the world by
advancing cooperation based on mutual interests. Thus, for
instance, an international institution like the WTO promotes
economic interests of nation-states and help in achieving
cooperation among countries of the world. This cooperative
international order strengthens international peace. The basic idea
of republican liberalism is that democracy and international peace
are inseparable. Republican liberals like Michael Doyle, B. M.
Russett, D. Lake and others believe that democracy ensures
peaceful resolution of conflicts. A state where democratic cultures
have taken firm root is less prone to violence and conflict, because
it can solve its problems through dialogues and negotiations.
Therefore, promotion of democracy in the world would ensure
lesser violence and a peaceful international order that would be
mutually interdependent for common economic and political
interests.

This analysis of the liberal position in IR enables us to focus on the

salient features of liberal theory in IR and its main
protagonists. Box 2.1 highlights the basic assumptions of the
liberal theory:

Box 2.1: Liberal Theory in IR: Basic Assumptions and Leading Theorists

 Early Liberalism (1920-late 1930s)

Basic Assumptions

 Nation-states are the main actors in IR.

 Cooperation among nation-states is essential for a peaceful world order.
 Nation-states that valued individual liberty and freedom in their domestic political systems can
best ensure international peace.
 Relations among nations would help avoid war and establish peace in the world.

Early Liberal Theorists: N. Angell, W. Wilson. Also known as

‘Utopian Liberalism’, early liberalism lost grounds to neo-realism
in the late 1930s.

Post-Second World War Liberalism (1945-1970s)

Basic Assumptions

 Nation-states are not the only actors in IR; individuals, groups, societal organizations are also
important actors.
 Technological advancement and economic interests bind the states in a complex web of
interdependence. This interdependence promotes a cooperative international order.
 International institutions like the UNO, WTO, NATO and EU help to promote international
cooperation and strengthen efforts for peace.
 Democracy and competitive economy can ensure international peace.
 Democratic states seek peaceful resolution of conflicts, and do not fight with each other.
 Competitive market economy keeps away security fears of nation-states, because commercial
interests become the primary concern of states.

Post-Second World War Liberal Theorists: A. J. P. Taylor, D.

Mitrany, E. Haas, R. Keohane, J. Nye, V. Rittberger, O. R. Young,
M. Doyle, B. M. Russett.

Neo-liberalism

Liberalism is a long historical tradition that continued its journey

into the twenty-first century. With the onset of globalization and
free trade in the late 1970s, a group of liberal thinkers argued that
this new economic trend would have enormous impact on the
nation-state and the international order. This group, known as
neo-liberal thinkers in IR, emerged after the triumph of the ‘New
Right’ in Britain and the US during the late 1970s and 1980s. Neo-
liberals like C. B. Macpherson, T. Friedman, John Rawls, Francis
Fukuyama and K. Ohmae argued, in different ways, against the
Keynesian philosophy of state intervention in economic life. In an
era of globalization, neo-liberal theorists in IR favoured a free play
of economic forces, and a minimal role for the state in economic
life. They argued that the former theory of laissez faire in trade
could not remove the control of the state over economic life
without hindrance. With the concept of the ‘welfare state’ gaining
popularity after the Second World War, the state came to exercise a
constant dominance in socio-economic life. The neo-liberals
argued that the triumph of globalization renders the notion of state
sovereignty vulnerable as ‘free trade’ introduced the idea of trade
without national borders. They believed that globalization can help
achieve true internationalism and a peaceful world order about
which post-Second World War liberals remained so passionate and
optimistic. They wanted a ‘rollback’ of the welfare state and
protectionism in economic life, because these practices ultimately
kill the enterprise and talent of the individual, and make the
society incapable of achieving better results. So, a minimal state is
required for economic liberalism, which in turn can pave the way
for a cooperative international order based on peace, harmony and
safeguard of human rights.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the ‘Socialist Bloc’,
the neo-liberal philosophy claimed to have gained more strength.
They refer to the Soviet model of state intervention and
protectionism in economic life to vindicate their arguments.
According to the neo-liberals, state protectionism in economic
matters not only affects human enterprise, they bring corruption,
nepotism and inefficiency in socio-political life which may prove to
be very detrimental to the state and the society. Conversely,
economic liberalism of the ‘minimal state’ helps national and world
trade to prosper with benefits reaching the grassroot level.
Organizations like the WTO, APEC (Asia Pacific Economic
Community), NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement),
IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the World Bank, which
help to promote free trade among nations, also promote world
peace and security by enhancing the economic prosperity of the
nation-states and the world. Globalization, represented by free
market economy in the domestic sphere linked to international
trade, has helped many underdeveloped states to achieve sufficient
economic development, which in turn would positively affect socio-
political development in these countries, think the neo-liberals.
They believe that sufficient cooperation and interdependence
among nation-states are possible through globalization. In the
twenty-first century, it is not possible, and hence desirable, for any
nation to isolate itself from world trade, and fully control its
internal economic life. The neo-liberal view is not beyond criticism.
It is discussed later in the chapter. In Box 2.2, we turn our
attention to the basic assumptions of the neo-liberal theory in
international relations.

Pluralist Theory

Pluralist theory in IR is a branch of the broader liberal theory. As

the name suggests, this theory holds the view that in IR,
individuals, groups, associations, institutions and organizations
also play important roles apart from the state. In other words, this
theory believes that every society is plural in nature, and the state
is one among many institutions in the society. So, it is unwise to
identify the state as the only important actor in IR; other
organizations and institutions play vital roles in international
relations today.

The diversification of liberal theory into sociological, institutional,

and interdependence liberalism actually upholds the views of the
pluralists. These branches of liberalism minimize the excessive
importance of the state in IR, and suggest that non-state actors are
also very significant in IR today. Therefore, before identifying the
general characteristics of the pluralist theory, it would be pertinent
to know about these three branches (sociological, institutional, and
interdependence) of liberalism that form the core of the pluralist
theory. The basic idea of sociological liberalism refers to IR as the
study of relations among individuals, groups and societies, in
addition to the study of interactions among national governments.
Pluralists like R. Little, D. Nicholls and J. Burton agree with the
theorists of sociological liberalism, and view IR as the study of
‘informal’ relations among individuals, groups, associations and
societies beyond the more ‘formal’ relations between governments
of different nation-states.

Box 2.2: Neo-liberal Theory in IR: Basic Assumptions and Leading Theorists

Basic Assumptions
 Economic liberalism is marked by free trade and globalization.
 Minimum state intervention in economic life—discarding of the Keynesian model.
 Failure of Laissez faire theory to remove state control on economic life.
 Rollback of the ‘welfare’ and ‘protectionist’ state as it breeds inefficiency and corruption.
 Free trade can ensure domestic and international peace and security because states are engaged in
the economic development process, and shy away from war.
 Free trade can best thrive in a democratic political system as it secures human rights and basic
freedoms of people.
 Disintegration of Soviet Union and the ‘socialist bloc’ marked the triumph of free market
economy.
 In the twenty-first century, cooperation and interdependence of states are possible through
globalization.

Leading Theorists: C. B. Macpherson, T. Friedman, J. Rawls, F.

Fukuyama, K. Ohmae.

Institutional liberalism holds the view that international

institutions like the UNO, WTO, NATO and EU help promote
cooperation among states in the world and strengthen efforts for
international peace. Pluralists like Krasner, Young and Underdal
subscribe to this view of institutional liberals and add
multinational corporations (MNCs) and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) to their list of non-state actors who play
significant roles in IR today. Like the lnstitutional liberals, these
pluralists also believe that international institutions, MNCs and
NGOs help to reduce the possibilities of state-sponsored anarchy in
the world by advancing cooperation based on mutual interests.
Sometimes, activities of an international organization and an NGO
may be pursued for the same end. Thus, while an international
organization like the UNO promotes international peace by
thwarting the evil designs of a country, an NGO like the Amnesty
International helps in curbing excesses of the national
governments and restoring human rights in the world, and through
such activities, promotes the cause of international peace. Without
adequate safeguard of human rights, international peace and
security it is difficult to achieve in the modern world. Institutions
and organizations beyond the state are engaged in promoting,
knowingly or unknowingly, international peace and harmony, and
getting increasing importance in international affairs. The
pluralists provide theoretical support to these institutions,
associations, groups, and organizations in IR today.
Interdependence liberalism believes that modern states are welfare
organizations and not security organizations. The primary goal of
 these welfare states is to secure a cooperative international order
based on mutual understanding. Pluralists like Rosecrance and
Hoffmann believe that in this international order, it is not
sufficient to engage the nation-states only; the involvement of non-
state actors must be secured to make the world truly friendly,
cooperative and peaceful. Non-state actors are important
instruments of the present cooperative international order which is
highly interdependent in nature.

Pluralists are against the monopoly of the state as an actor in

international affairs. In all modern societies, plural forces for
socio-political and economic activities are in existence, and
working alongside the state. These bodies are not contrary, but
complimentary, to the state. They are engaged in socio-political-
economic development within the state. Some of these non-state
actors are working outside the boundaries of the state on a global
scale. They are engaged in different activities that ultimately help
in securing international cooperation and harmony. The UNO has
also recognized the role of the NGOs in developmental activities
throughout the world. Pluralists believe that the contribution of
these non-state actors in IR must be properly recognized, and
given due importance. The recognition of non-state actors in IR
would not only help in establishing a cooperative world, it would
also curb the dangers of state-dominated international affairs.

This analysis of the pluralist theory helps us to identify some

general characteristics of the theory. Box 2.3 highlights the
features of the theory and the leading advocates of this theory.

Box 2.3: Pluralist Theory in IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 Pluralism is a branch of liberal theory in IR.

 Pluralism actually thrives on sociological, institutional and interdependence liberalism.
 According to pluralism, the state is not the monopoly actor in IR.
 Non-state actors like individuals, groups, institutions, associations and organizations are also
significant actors in IR.
 International cooperation, peace and harmony require the involvement of non-state actors along
with nation-states.
 IR is not only government-to-government interactions; it is also interactions among societies and
non-state actors.
 MNCs and NGOs play crucial roles in international affairs today.
 A dependent world is the product of a close connection between state- and non-state actors.

Leading Theorists: R. Little, D. Nicholls, O. R.Young, A.

Underdal, R. Rosecrance, S. Hoffmann.

An Evaluation of Liberal Theory (including Pluralism)

Some of the major attacks on liberal theory in IR came from the

realist thinkers. They criticized liberal optimism about a peaceful,
cooperative world. Realists like E. H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau,
George Kennan and Arnold Wolfers saw the views of the liberals as
‘idealistic’ and accused them of misreading the actual situation
prevailing in world politics, and nurturing false dreams about the
world. According to Carr, there is little rationale to believe that
nation-states wish to live in harmony and peace. On the contrary,
conflict of interests of the nation-states is the reality in
international politics. Nation-states do not cooperate in world
politics because their opposing interests would leave limited
options for them to search for peace and harmony. Clash of
interests actually lead the nations to war. The two world wars bear
testimony to this observation, think the realists. Carr, in his
book The Twenty Years Crisis, noted that profound conflict of
interests between countries and people occur almost always in
international politics. For instance, the developed nations, for their
economic and political advantages, would prefer to continue with
the prevalent international order; whereas the poor nations, due to
their disadvantageous position in the international system would
try to alter the system. This and many other clashes of interests
may lead to frequent conflicts in the world. Liberals are thus wrong
in suggesting that nations try to share mutual interests and live in
peace and harmony. The reality is different in international
politics: it is conflict rather than cooperation among countries.

Hans J. Morgenthau, in his celebrated work Politics among

Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, shattered the liberal
‘myth’ of a peaceful, interdependent, cooperative world based on
democratic values. He started with a portrayal of human nature as
self-seeking and self-interested. These selfish human beings cannot
change their basic human nature as rulers of the state. As a
consequence, the state also looks after its own interests, and does
not care for others’ interests in international politics. Morgenthau
does not find anything wrong in this attitude of the state. The main
tasks of a country are to safeguard its own interests, loosely termed
as national interests, and to provide security to its people. In these
tasks, the rulers of the state cannot afford to practice morality.
Morality can be practiced in the private domain, but not in
statecraft. An ordinary individual can practice morality in private
life, but the leader of a state cannot afford to go by ethical and
moral principles if the interests of the country are at stake.
International politics, like domestic politics, is a struggle for power
where nations compete, and if required, conflict with one another
for supremacy. There is little scope for cooperation, as the liberals
suggest, in this international order. According to Morgenthau,
‘interest backed by power’ is the key word in international politics,
and countries prefer to follow this policy rather than the policy of
peace and harmony.

For realists like Carr, Morgenthau and Wolfers, the state is the
most important actor in international politics. They oppose the
pluralist view that individuals, groups, associations or institutions
play significant roles in IR. World politics is essentially a game for
the nation-states, who remain in a controlling position in
international affairs. Further, neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz and
John Mearsheimer oppose the pluralist view that institutions play
important roles in IR. Institutions are not important in their own
right; they acquire importance because nation-states either work
through them or seek their assistance. Nation-states use the
institutions to fulfill their own interests. The state is the main
actor, and the institutions are the less-important players in IR. The
pluralist view of interdependence among modern states is also
contested by neo-realists. Neo-realists argue that within this
apparent interdependence, a power game is involved. Advanced
and powerful countries of the world create an atmosphere of
interdependence to serve their political, economic and strategic
interests. Every strong power in history would create this condition
to fulfill its interests. That way, history is seldom changed,
according to the realists; all history is the history of anarchy due to
the politics of power and interest, played by nation-states.

Marxists—from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels to neo-Marxists,

to thinkers influenced by the Marxist ideology, such as the World
System theorists—have criticized the liberal theory in IR on several
grounds. A general Marxist critique propagated by Marx himself
and his friend Engels, and also by the neo-Marxists, points out
flaws in the liberal idea of democracy and peace in IR. The idea of
democracy advanced by the liberal thinkers was the bourgeois idea
of democracy that only protected the interests of the bourgeois
class. Similarly, the idea of peace in IR was mooted to maintain the
existing status quo in the international order, controlled by the
capitalists. The neo-Marxists also criticize liberal views on
globalization and human rights. Globalization is not the panacea to
all economic problems of the poor countries, because it would
create economic inequality through capital outflow that would be
controlled by the rich nations. Therefore, globalization would bring
with it more economic and social disparity by widening the gap
between the poor and the rich countries. Human rights, according
to neo-Marxists, is nothing but the idea of bourgeois freedom, and
it does not take into account the rights and freedoms of the toiling
masses of the world. Further, protagonists of the World System
Theory (WST) such as Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank
and Samir Amin believe that in the present international order
there is a big gap between the rich industrial nations, whom they
called the ‘core’ states, and the deprived poor states, identified as
the ‘peripheral’ states. Globalization and the resulting economic
disparity were behind this ‘core-periphery’ difference system where
the core dominates and exploits the periphery in the current
international order.

The liberals react differently to these criticisms. A group of ‘weak’

liberals, as identified by Jackson and Sorensen, accept many of the
criticisms, and believe that the current state of IR needs changes
and rich-poor disparity must be minimized. However, a ‘strong’
group of liberals, identified by Jackson and Sorensen,
counterattack the critics by saying that the present state of IR
reflects liberal optimism, as more nations are favouring an
international order based on democracy, peace and
interdependence. The pessimism of the realists and the Marxists,
argue the strong liberals, has been rejected by the people in
different parts of the world as they shared liberal optimism of a
peaceful and cooperative international order based on the
protection of democracy and human rights.
 REALIST THEORY

The tradition of realism is rooted in the writings of many ancient

scholars. The classical realists believed that there was no
permanent solution to the problems of national and international
politics. Among them, Greek historian Thucydides is perhaps the
oldest. While writing on the Peloponnesian War (431 BC-404 BC),
he focused upon the conflicts and competitions among the Greek
city-states. According to him, the states were unequal in terms of
power. All states have to accept this reality of unequal power and
act accordingly. If the states follow this ‘reality’ they will survive
and prosper. He said that ‘the strong do what they have the power
to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’. In order to
survive, a state has to apply the ethics of caution and prudence,
foresight and judgment.

The Italian realist writer Niccolo Machiavelli urged rulers to be

shrewd and ruthless. As the world was anarchic in nature, and a
dangerous place to live, a ruler had to be brave like a lion and
cunning like a fox. According to him, the survival of a state,
preservation of its territorial integrity and political independence,
and the welfare of its people depended largely on the manipulative
powers of the ruler. Thomas Hobbes, the English political
philosopher, talked about the ‘state of nature’ where government
was absent. In this state of nature there was no rule of law. The
fear of the people about getting hurt or killed forced them to unite
and form a sovereign state. The sovereign state provided safety and
security to its people, and defended itself from external attack. A
government was thus necessary within a society in order to provide
rule of law and security to the people against violence. But in the
international sphere, the multiplicity of sovereign states might
result in a state of anarchy that could endanger international
security. Hobbes believed that even if war was the last resort for
the resolution of an international conflict, such conflicts could be
moderated through the enforcement of an international law. So an
international law had to be framed by the sovereign states
collectively, and its strict adherence was necessary for the states to
survive and prosper.

Classical realists were of the opinion that people lived in a

condition of total insecurity and lawlessness. This situation was
altered by a powerful sovereign state with a strong government.
However, in domestic politics as well as in international affairs, the
problem of conflicts could not be solved permanently. Realists
viewed conflicts and violence as integral parts of domestic and
world politics. The ruler needs to be powerful to resolve conflicts in
politics. The classical realists emphasized the primary value of
power in statecraft. The concern for power of the ruler
characterized classical realism. This belief in power was again
reflected and reinforced in the writings of neoclassical realists of
the twentieth century, such as E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau.

E. H. Carr’s book The Twenty Years Crisis (1939) provided a

scathing criticism of the liberal kind of ‘utopian’ politics. Carr
denounced the liberal idea of abolishing war in international
politics. According to him, conflicts between states were inevitable
in international politics, because there was no international
regulatory authority to curb conflicts and wars. We may wish to
abolish wars between states, but wars will continue to be fought
due to opposing interests of states, and the absence of any
regulatory authority in the international system. Carr believed that
‘power’, not ‘morality’ would be the guiding force in international
politics.

Morgenthau’s realist theory rests upon the assumption that people

are by nature self-interested and power-hungry. In his
book Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace (1972), Morgenthau wrote that humans by nature were
political animals and they enjoyed power. The element of power
can secure an individual’s position in the society, and can place
him in an advantageous position in comparison to others. Like the
classical realists, Morgenthau also believed that ‘politics is a
struggle for power’. As political groups compete with one another
to enjoy the fruits of power in domestic politics, similarly in
international politics, states compete and fight for power. In
international politics, the state must pursue power, because it is
the only means for the furtherance of national interest. But, as did
Thucydides and Hobbes, Morgenthau too argued that the state
system creates international anarchy. He believes that the
preservation of international peace and stability is possible only by
individual states in the absence of any integrated world society.
 Here he defends the craving for power by individual states and
tries to legitimize this urge for power in terms of morality and
ethics. According to him, morality has two sides—private and
public. He assigns one type of morality for the private sphere and
an entirely different type of morality for the public sphere.
Individuals in the private sphere can observe moral practices as
much as they like, but a state cannot afford to preach morality if
the safety and security of its people are in danger. In times of acute
crisis, it may become imperative for a state to adopt certain means
like spying or conspiring or waging full-scale war for ensuring the
security of its people. Such an act may appear to be contradictory
to private morality. Morgenthau urges scholars to separate political
ethics from private ethics. An individual may not like war, but the
leader of the state can never swear to not going to war if the
interests of the people and the state are at stake. Let us analyse this
distinction between private and public morality, as seen by
Morgenthau, in more simple terms. Let us suppose ‘B’, the
individual, does not like conflicts. As an individual, he can remain
very faithful to this ethics, and may not hit or hurt others. But if ‘B’
assumes leadership of his nation, he cannot remain faithful to his
‘ethics’ of disliking conflicts. If the interests of his nation and
people are harmed, he would have to involve himself in conflict or
war to secure the interests of his nation and people. Political ethics
on the one hand involves foresight, prudence, wisdom, courage,
judgment; on the other, it involves cunning, maneuverability and
shrewd diplomacy.

In order to understand Morgenthau’s version of realism, it is

necessary to know his ‘six principles of political realism’ as
presented in Politics among Nations. These principles are as
follows.
1. The law of politics is rooted in human nature which is self-seeking, self-interested and power-
loving. This human nature has remained unchanged since ancient times.
2. Politics is ‘an autonomous sphere of action’. It is different from economics, ethics, religion or
aesthetics. The concept of ‘interest defined in terms of power’ makes politics autonomous because the
concept of ‘power’ can help to analyse all politics adequately.
3. Interests of different states may vary from time to time. It is wrong to believe that the meaning
and definition of interest is unaffected by the circumstances of time and space. The political and cultural
environment determines the nature of interests of a state. This changing reality has to be recognized by all.
4. There is a sharp difference between private morality and political ethics. A leader has to judge a
political situation in the light of actual circumstances. Ethics in international politics is political or
situational ethics, and therefore sharply opposed to private morality. Application of individual moral
 judgment is not possible for a leader. He has to take necessary steps considering wider political
responsibilities. As a citizen, a person’s action might be influenced by private morality, but the moment he
acts as a leader, he has to follow political morality with prudence, taking into account the actual situation.
5. Political realism believes that aspirations of a particular state cannot become the governing law of
the universe. This would amount to the imposition of a state’s beliefs upon another. Such a situation is
dangerous as it would undermine international peace and security. This might ultimately lead to the
destruction of human civilization.
6. Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound awareness of human
limitations. Human nature as it is should be considered in international politics, rather than human nature
as it should be.

Box 2.4 highlights Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism.

The impact of behaviouralism and positivist philosophy in social

sciences resulted in the emergence of a new line of realist thought
during the 1960s and 1970s. Thomas Schelling, for example, came
up with a newer version of realism, later identified as strategic
realism. This could be considered as a part of neo-realism, which
wanted to analyse international politics from an empirical point of
view, making a departure from the normative tone of classical and
neo-classical realism. To the classical and neo-classical realists,
interest and power became ‘norms’ in both domestic and
international politics. They believed that by analysing these
concepts, all aspects of domestic and international politics could be
studied adequately. Keeping the normative aspects of earlier forms
of realism in the background, strategic realism tends to emphasize
on empirical analytical tools for strategic thoughts.

Box 2.4: Six Principles of Political Realism as Advocated by Morgenthau

1.
The law of politics is rooted in human nature which is self-seeking,
self-interested and power-loving.
2.
3.
Politics is an autonomous sphere of activity, and does not depend
on economics. The concepts of ‘interest’ and ‘power’ can make
politics independent of other disciplines.
4.
5.
A state’s interests are not fixed; they are changeable depending on
time and space. This reality must be recognized in international
politics.
6.
7.
Ethics in international politics is political or situational ethics, and
therefore sharply opposed to private morality.
8.
9.
Political realism believes that aspirations of a particular state
cannot become the governing law of the universe.
10.
11.

Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a

profound awareness of human limitations. Human nature as it is
should be considered in international politics, rather than the
human nature as it should be.
12.

Thomas Schelling, the chief exponent of strategic realism, is well

aware about the crisis-ridden contemporary world. In order to
avoid disaster, he talks about various mechanisms like strategies,
moves and calculated actions to be followed by statesmen. For
instance, a good strategy suggests that a state uses power
intelligently, and not blatantly, while formulating a foreign policy,
to avoid any catastrophe. Schelling is not bothered with the
questions ‘what is good?’ or ‘what is right?’; he is concerned more
with the elements required for the success of a foreign policy. The
crucial instrument for the success of a foreign policy is the military.
It is a coercive apparatus that can scare an adversary. Coercion can
force an adversary into bargaining. For Schelling, diplomacy is all
about bargaining. War no longer remains a contest of strength in
today’s world of nuclear arsenals. Currently the ‘threat’ of war is
more fearsome than actual war. Therefore, the ‘threat’ perspective
is more important to him than the real war; and intelligent
strategies require very calculative use of this threat perspective in
foreign policy. Although Schelling justified intelligent strategies to
be adopted by foreign policy-makers, he failed to analyse the role
of values in such strategies.

Among contemporary neo-realist thinkers, Kenneth Waltz is

particularly important. In his important work, Theory of
International Politics, written in 1979, Waltz argued that to study
international relations one should begin with the system—the state
or other political system—and ultimately come down to the
individual actors. This is in opposition to the traditional realists’
approach, whose basic premise was the individual human nature.
For the neo-realists, the structure of the system and its relative
distribution of power are the focal points of analysis. For instance,
Kenneth Waltz places great importance on the structure of the
system, on its interacting units, and on the changes occurring
within the system. He sees the system and its structures as more
important than individuals. Waltz’s version of neo-realism is
identified as the ‘neo-realist systems theory’ with emphasis on
scientific analysis.

According to Waltz, all states are similar in their functional

aspects, as all perform similar tasks such as promoting citizens’
welfare, collecting taxes, formulating foreign policies, and
maintaining internal peace. What makes a state strikingly different
from others is not its culture or constitution or ideology; it is rather
the varying capabilities of the states that make them different from
each other. Therefore, those states which are more ‘capable’ than
others would control international politics. What naturally follows
is that the great powers are the determining factors in the
international political system. After the Second World War, the US
and the Soviet Union, two big and powerful nations, controlled
international politics. The bipolarity that developed after the war
was more stable than the multi-polar nature of world politics that
existed before it. During the bipolar period, the two superpowers
were very keen on maintaining the system, because the system
provided them with more advantages. According to neo-realists,
leaders cannot act independent of the structures of the state.
Conducting of foreign policy becomes essentially a mechanical and
obvious task for leaders. They are compelled to operate within the
confinements of the structures of the political system. While the
focal point of strategic realism is the art of diplomacy and prudent
strategies, neo-realism is more concerned with structure that
dictates and determines policies. However, Waltz also stressed
upon the notions of state sovereignty and national interest. But
unlike neo-classical realists, Waltz does not see national interest as
the core issue in international politics; for him, it acts as a guide to
tell the statesman when and where to proceed. In other words, a
statesman would have to depend on the structures of the state to
formulate foreign policies; but in the making of foreign policy,
national interest would guide him how to proceed. Therefore,
according to neo-realism, there is no room for wisdom,
intelligence, experience or astuteness of the decision-maker. What
determines the behaviour of the state is the structure as a whole.

Contemporary economic and technological advancement have

posed a challenge to realist thinking. Globalization, increasing
privatization of state-owned enterprises, foreign investment,
increasing significance of non-state actors, and the growth and
importance of civil society have questioned the validity of the
realist theory which views the state as the most important unit in
international politics. What are the neo-realist responses to these
challenges? Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Krasner,
Robert Gilpin and John Mearsheimer have provided answers to
these challenges. From their writings, a few common responses to
these ‘crises’ could be deciphered. First, neo-realists are sceptical
about the impact of globalization throughout the world. They
believe that globalization is a typically ‘Western’ concept, and its
impact is limited to the developing nations of Asia, Africa and
Latin America. Globalization, therefore, would not be a serious
threat to nation-states and their interplay in international
relations. Secondly, neorealists consider economic
interdependence of the world as a myth. If capital flows are
measured as a percentage of the GNP (Gross National Product),
the level of economic interdependence in the world in 2000 is
more or less equal to that of 1910. So, the neo-liberal claim that
economic interdependence of the world has made the nation-state
a minor player in international affairs is not tenable.

Thirdly, the neo-realists believe that both ‘socialist’ and ‘market’

economic models have produced very satisfactory growth rates.
Soviet Union of the 1950s and Japan of the 1980s are good
examples of this argument. The neo-liberal claim that only free
market economy can achieve sustained growth is also not true.
Fourthly, the nation-state is still the most preferred political unit in
international affairs, and despite anti-statism, there is no strong
rival to challenge and replace the state in international relations.
The nation-state still commands allegiance of the people and
successfully manages conflicts to give its citizens a secured and
 peaceful life. The notion of state sovereignty, as Krasner (1999)
points out, has not become wholly vulnerable to globalization.
Finally, neo-realists think that military power is still the
determining factor in international politics. Waltz’s notion of
‘capability’ of a state rests on its military power. The more capable
military power would remain in the controller’s position in
international politics. During the bipolar period, the US and the
Soviet Union were examples of this proposition. Today, the US and
China may be cited as examples of ‘capable’ states due to their
military power. After identifying the major arguments of different
schools of realism (classical, neo-classical, neo-realism), Box
2.5 summarizes the important characteristics of different trends of
realism.

Box 2.5: Realist Theory in IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Classical Realism

Basic Features

 Classical realists were of the opinion that people lived in a condition of total insecurity and
lawlessness. This situation was altered by a powerful sovereign state with a strong government.
 The ruler needs to be powerful to resolve conflicts in politics. Classical realists emphasized the
primary value of power in statecraft.

Leading Theorists: Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas

Hobbes.

Neo-classical Realism

Basic Features

 Conflicts between states were inevitable in international politics because there was no
international regulatory authority to curb conflicts and wars.
 The law of politics is rooted in human nature which is self-seeking, self-interested and power-
loving.
 The concept of ‘interest defined in terms of power’ makes politics autonomous because the
concept of ‘power’ can help to analyse all kinds of politics adequately.
 Ethics in international politics is political or situational ethics, and therefore sharply opposed to
private morality.
 Aspirations of a particular state cannot become the governing law of the universe.
 Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound awareness of human
limitations.

Leading Theorists: E. H. Carr, H. J. Morgenthau.

 Neo-realism

Basic Features

 In the contemporary world, the ‘threat’ of war is more fearsome than actual war.
 For the neo-realists, the structure of the system and its relative distribution of power are the focal
points of analysis.
 States which are more ‘capable’ than others would control international politics.
 Neo-realists are sceptical about the impact of globalization throughout the world.
 The neo-liberal claim that economic interdependence of the world has made the nation.-state a
minor player in international affairs is not tenable.
 The neo-liberal claim that only free market economy can achieve sustained growth is not true.
 Despite anti-statism, there is no serious rival to challenge and replace the state in international
relations.

Leading Theorists: K. Waltz, T. Schelling, S. Krasner, R. Gilpin, J.

Mearsheimer.

An Evaluation of Realist Theory

Classical and neoclassical theories of realism were criticized by the

liberals and the feminists for their narrow and partial views. For
classical and neo-classical realists, power seems to be the only
important element in international politics. This makes the theory
very narrow and partial. It reduces other aspects of politics such as
cooperation, peoples’ freedom, nature of the government, values
and beliefs of the people, and motivation of the leaders to a
negligible level. Again, while highlighting the selfish and evil
nature of man, the realists were discarding the human instinct of
love and affection. This is only a partial view of reality. Critics
argue that realism is a narrowly focused theory. The international
scenario does not only reflect the collective behaviour of states in
conflict. It also shows states sharing common interests, observing
common rules and cooperating in a mutually dependent world.
Besides states, there are other significant actors in the global
society, such as NGOs, MNCs and INGOs, which are not taken into
account by the realists.

Emancipatory theorists—who believe in the social emancipation of

people—like Ken Booth and Andrew Linklater, criticize realism as
an obsolete theory. They believe that power politics and defence
strategies are no longer relevant in the contemporary world. Today
security has become a local problem within disorganized, and
sometimes failed, states. The scope and character of security has
 also changed. Security needs to be provided to the global
community as a whole against threats such as ecological disaster,
poverty, illiteracy, poor education and health facilities. The main
thrust of the emancipatory theorists is not on physical security of
the people, but on the more general and global problems.

The neo-realist ideas have also been countered by the neo-liberals

and the constructivists. Schelling’s strategic realism has come
under attack from the constructivists. No strategy, however
prudent, can be free from normative values. Emphasis on value-
free strategies is as dangerous as emphasis on power. Moreover,
Waltz’s love for structures of the system appears to be partial
again. It is not that structures only condition humans, it is also the
other way round—humans build and change structures of the
political system according to their convenience. But Waltz, due to
his obsession for structures, failed to notice the immense
potentialities of the individual and groups of people.

However, despite criticisms by many schools of thought in

international relations, realism continues to be an important
theory in the discipline because of its emphasis on power and the
significance of the state in international politics. Realism will
continue to remain relevant as long as the states pursue power and
remain the pivotal actors in world politics.

MARXIST THEORY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The Marxist theory in International Relations would be difficult to

understand without a basic idea of Marxism. Broadly speaking, the
writings of Karl Marx and his friend Frederick Engels constitute
the basic premises of Marxism. Later on, the views of socialist
leaders like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zhe Dong and
several academicians and scholars were added to the Marxist
political philosophy. The neo-Marxists have also added fresh
dimensions to Marxist ideology to make it academically more rich,
time-worthy and relevant in today’s world. The following are a few
basic tenets of Marxist political philosophy, as developed by Marx
and Engels.
1. The Marxist idea of dialectical materialism holds the view that change is inevitable in nature and
in society; and changes must be qualitative rather than merely quantitative.
2. The Marxist view of historical materialism argues that in all hitherto existing societies (except
primitive communism) there were class divisions among people based on their relations to property and
means of production; and changes always took place through class struggles (clash of interests of opposing
classes).
3. Classes are mainly economic groupings of people based on their relation to the production process
in the society. Thus, those who own the means of production belong to one class, and those who do not
belong to another class.
4. Although class divisions existed in all societies except in case of primitive communism,
antagonism among classes reached its peak in the capitalist society, which ultimately was divided into two
classes: the capitalists (the owning class) and the proletariat (the nonowning class).
5. Excessive production and profit motive of the capitalists led to severe exploitation of the
proletariat in the capitalist society. Unable to bear with such extreme form of exploitation, the proletariat
consolidates as a class on the basis of economic, political and ideological similarities, and wages a class
struggle against the capitalists. In this class struggle, the proletariat wins and establishes, gradually, the
socialist society which is free of classes and class divisions.
6. The state was created by the owning class to safeguard its interests and to oppress the non-owning
class through different mechanisms, such as the police. Therefore the state, in Marxist view, served the
interests of the owning class and became a tool for oppression. When class division ends in the socialist
society, the state will have no role to play in the society, and therefore, will ‘wither away’.
7. Proletariats all over the world are exploited, and therefore share common interests. They are not
bound by national borders or national interests, because their agony everywhere in the world is the same—
they are exploited to the tilt by the capitalists. The proletarian revolution is, therefore, international in
character.
8. Economic issues in the society constitute the base in Marxist political philosophy; every other
aspect, such as politics, culture, education or religion, remain at the super-structural level, dependent on
economic factors (the base).

Although the whole gamut of Marxist philosophy is not as simple

as presented here, nevertheless these basic ideas would help us to
properly understand the Marxist theory of International Relations.

The Marxist view of the world is determined by the rise of

capitalism and its impact on human relations. At a certain stage in
the development of history, Marx and Engels observed in their
book Communist Manifesto, that capitalism played a progressive
role in eradicating the irrational and superstitious feudal system
and introducing rational and scientific ways of thinking. Yet,
capitalism soon turned into a system that divided people on the
basis of ownership of the means of production. The owning class,
by means of its economic power, cornered state (political) power to
safeguard its interests. With a view to augment production and
garner more and more profit, the capitalists started exploiting the
non-owning people by denying them basic economic, social and
political freedoms. Through this process of exploitation, capitalism
also brought about, unknowingly, solidarity in international
working class movement. The rise of capitalism, therefore, was a
turning phase in human history and international relations,
because it gave birth to possibilities of ending existing social
relations and generating new ones that would help to create
different and new international relations.

The Marxist critique of the capitalist system is still much relevant

in international relations with the onset of globalization, which is
viewed as a global movement of capital, goods and labour. It is
possible for the rich capitalist states to control this global
movement, and dominate in international politics. The liberal and
neo-realist critics of Marxism wanted to prove that Marxism had
made no contribution to the study of IR, because in the Marxist
philosophy state, nationalism and cooperation or conflict among
states had little relevance. If IR is primarily concerned with
interactions among nation-states, the Marxist philosophy does not
fit into it because it does not have any interest in nation-states,
their struggle for supremacy, national interests, and politics for
power among states. But this criticism is not valid because classical
and neo-Marxist thinkers proved quite relevant for the study of
international relations. Classical Marxist thinkers like Lenin and
Bukharin developed the theory of imperialism, which they
considered as an advanced stage of capitalism. At this stage of
development of capitalism, new mercantilist states emerged. These
states were willing to use force to achieve their economic and
political goals, resulting in further crises in capitalism and
estrangement of the proletariat from the capitalist system. Lenin
and Bukharin argued that the First World War was the product of a
desperate need for new markets for the surplus capital
accumulated by the dominant mercantilist states. The tendency of
the mercantilist state to find new outlets for its accumulated
surplus capital led to a severe struggle among these states that
shattered the promise of a peaceful international order, advanced
by the liberals. Lenin’s and Bukharin’s views on imperialism—that
it would create severe competition, even struggle, among states for
markets, and shatter the notion of interdependence and peace
among nations—thus served as a critique of the liberal position.
Their study of imperialism also strengthened Marx’s original
proposition that developed capitalism would face increasing
internal crises.
Contemporary Marxists have largely drawn from their classical
comrades to build their ideas on development and
underdevelopment. But they have also made some significant
departures from the classical Marxists who believed in the
progressive side of capitalism that would facilitate industrial
development for all peoples. Dependency theorists, for instance,
argued that ‘peripheral’ societies failed to achieve industrial
development because of the dominant class interests of the
capitalists in the ‘core’ and the ‘periphery’. Underdeveloped
peripheral societies must detach themselves from the world
capitalist economy to achieve autonomous industrial development.
This view is linked to the process of globalization as well, which the
liberal thinkers claim would help in achieving unprecedented
economic growth. The dependency theorists believe that due to the
shared class interests of the capitalists in all parts of the world,
globalization would not be able to bring about equal development
for all people, and end exploitative tendencies of the ‘core’ over the
‘periphery’. World System theorists like Wallerstein also disagreed
with the classical Marxist view in the progressive role of capitalism
to bring about industrial development in all parts of the world. But
classical- and neo-Marxists share the view that class interests of
the capitalists know no boundaries, and these are exploitative and
dominant in all parts of the world. These exploitative class
interests of the capitalists would create unbridgeable gap between
the rich and the poor peoples of the world. The proletariat must
rise above national interests to introduce change in this
international order, and aim for a class-less society to achieve
international relations based on equitable relations among people.
Present international relations are dominated by the interests of
the capitalists. This could be ascertained from the fact that
capitalists of ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ societies join hands to exploit
the poor people, and to justify the existing international order.
Only through the establishment of socialist class-less societies
across the world, the present exploitative nature of international
relations could be changed. For that end, the proletariat of the
world, cutting across national boundaries and national interests,
would have to unite and struggle for change of the existing
international order.
 This analysis of the Marxist theory of IR helps us to identify the
basic assumptions of the theory. They are presented in Box 2.6.

Box 2.6: Marxist Theory of IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 Marxist theory of IR is based on some of the main principles of Marxism, such as dialectical
materialism, historical materialism, and class struggle.
 The economically dominant class in almost every society cornered social and political power and
exploited the poor people.
 Class division and exploitation of one class by another reached its peak in the capitalist society.
 Excess production and profit motive led to extreme exploitation of the proletariat in the capitalist
society.
 Excess production also generates conflicts—among the capitalists for new outlets to sell the
produced goods—and crises in advanced capitalism.
 The First World War was an example of such conflicts. Search for new outlets also resulted in
imperialism.
 Marxist views on imperialism served as a critique of the liberal theory in IR that late capitalism
brings in a cooperative and peaceful world order based on free-trade interdependence among states. Views
on imperialism also strengthen Marx’s original position that advanced capitalism would face internal crises.
 Neo-Marxists believe ‘peripheral’ societies remain underdeveloped due to common class interests
of the capitalists in ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ societies. Globalization could not generate equitable economic
development for all people.
 Present international relations are dominated by capitalists across the world, and need to be
changed.
 With the establishment of class-less socialist societies in every part of the world, new international
relations based on equality of all people could be built.
 For bringing about such changes in IR, the proletariat must rise above national identities and
national interests, because they have no state to serve their causes.

Leading Theorists: Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Vladimir

Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zhe Dong, Nikolai Bukharin, Leon
Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci.

An Evaluation of Marxist Theory of International Relations

Major criticisms of the Marxist theory of international relations

came from the liberals and the neo-realists. The liberals think that
with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Marxist view of IR lost
its relevance. The end of the Soviet Union, according to the
liberals, marked a triumph of capitalism over socialism, a reality
the Marxists failed to comprehend. The present international order
has been shaped according to the liberal-democratic ideology
which the Marxists termed as capitalist philosophy. Whatever be
the terminology, liberal-democratic or capitalist, the fact remains
that the present world has never developed according to the
Marxist view. With the eclipse of the Soviet Union, the socialist
ideology has been declared as non-existent by the liberals.

Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz have argued that for the

proletariat, national identity comes before proletarian
internationalism. Waltz believed that during the First World War
members of the proletariat found that they had more in common
with their own national bourgeoisie than with the proletariat of
other states. In every country of Europe, the proletariat
demonstrated nationalistic feelings manifested by its support for
the state and for war. So, the idea of proletariat internationalism is
absurd and based upon utopian premises. This major flaw in
Marxism results due to economic reductionism, which identifies
that economic interests of classes propel them to transcend
national boundaries.

Not all these criticisms appear to be correct. For instance, the

disintegration of the Soviet Union did not mark an end to socialism
or a triumph of capitalism; it rather revealed the ugly face of party
bureaucracy. The Communist Party in the Soviet Union usurped all
power and allowed nepotism and corruption to enter into the
party. As a consequence, the party was estranged from the people.
Capitalist elements took the opportunity to replace a corrupt and
weak party. Some contemporary, Western experts of IR—Andrew
Linklater, for example—believe that Marxism has not lost its
relevance after the end of the Soviet Union, and the onset of
globalization. Linklater identified four major contributions of
Marxism to the study of IR. First, the materialist analysis of
history, and ideas of production, property relations and class, are
immensely strong to oppose the realist views which hold that
power and national interests constitute the core in international
politics. Second, Marxism was concerned with international
inequality generated by capitalist globalization. Third, the global
spread of capitalist modernity helps in the development process of
modern societies and the conduct of their international relations.
Fourthly, analyses of international relations and globalization get a
critical outlook from the Marxists. Globalization and international
political economy (IPE) are analysed much objectively by the neo-
Marxists, who believe that these are not ubiquitously beneficial for
people. These views, in effect, strengthen the discussions on
globalization and IPE.

It is wrong to assume that Marxism has no relevance in the study

of IR. On the contrary, Marxist philosophy has been credited with
generating a new series of critical theories in IR which attempt to
analyse international relations from a new angle distinct from the
two main traditional schools of IR theory: the liberal school and
the realist school. Marxist interpretation of the development of
advanced capitalism proved somewhat right with controversies
surrounding the concept of globalization in today’s world.

WORLD SYSTEM THEORY

Some scholars of International Relations, Marxist in orientation,

developed the World System Theory (WST) to analyse the
postcolonial international order where, according to them, regional
class divisions and exploitation exist because of the capitalist
nature of the world economy. For the protagonists of the WST,
class divisions have assumed a regional character in the
postcolonial world which is divided into ‘core’ and ‘periphery’
regions in terms of wealth accumulation and economic
development. In the postcolonial international order, the rich
industrial regions of the world form the core, and the vast
impoverished third world regions constitute the periphery.
Throughout centuries, the core exploited the periphery and
accumulated wealth that helped the core regions to build industrial
infrastructure. The core regions mostly manufacture goods by
using capital which these regions have accumulated in plenty. The
peripheral regions mostly supply raw materials and cheap labour
to the core, but are neglected by the core as far as capital flow to
the periphery is concerned. Thus, according to WST, the present
world system is highly unequal because in this system the core
dominates over the periphery by means of its economic strength.
The core represents mostly the owning class, whereas the
periphery represents mainly the nonowning class.

The core uses its economic strength to garner political power and
to act as the centre in this new world system. The centre wants to
shape this new world order according to its interests. The centre
coerces the periphery to accept its diktats, and the periphery
sometimes succumbs to such diktats. However, the core and the
periphery are not strictly homogeneous categories. Internal crisis,
which is typical in the capitalist economic system, may also affect
the core. For instance, protagonists of WST like Immanuel
Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin and Giovanni
Arrighi have pointed out that the two world wars and several other
regional wars resulted due to the clash of interests of the core
states over the right to dominate and exploit the periphery. The
periphery again is not strictly an exclusive category. Within the
periphery there may again be centres and peripheries. Thus, the
city of Mumbai may be termed as a centre while rural Maharashtra
may be described as a periphery. This distinction may also be there
in the core regions. The city of Toronto, for instance, makes the
centre whereas Winnipeg may form the periphery.

In WST there is also a notion of ‘semi-periphery’. It is an area

where some industrial bases have been built, manufacturing of
goods has commenced on a moderate scale, and some
accumulation of wealth has taken place; but compared to the
advanced core regions they are minimal. But the semi-periphery is
economically more developed than the periphery. For instance,
Singapore or Taiwan may be considered as semi-peripheries as
compared to Bangladesh or Bhutan which could be treated as
peripheral states in the present world system. A semi-periphery is
somewhere between the core and the periphery and may act as a
bridge between the two. The former East Bloc countries could also
be seen as semi-peripheries. The core tries to dominate both over
the periphery and the semi-periphery in order to control the world
system. The class struggle in today’s world could take place
between the core and the periphery; and in any such class struggle
the semi-periphery and the periphery would be treated as one class
because the interest of the two would converge against the vastly
different capitalist interests of the core. Hence the capitalist class
interest in the core.

Some Western scholars of IR like Edward Friedman and William

Thompson suggest that there could be upward and downward
mobility among the core, the semi-periphery and the periphery.
According to them, it is possible for a semi-peripheral state to
move upward and join the core. Similarly, a periphery can move
upward and become a semi-periphery. Conversely, a core state may
go downward to become a semi-periphery. But supporters of WST
have never hinted at such possibilities. While it is arguably possible
for a periphery to become a semi-periphery, it is difficult to
imagine that any core state in today’s world would go downward
and turn into a semi-periphery. The high level of wealth
accumulation of a core state may prevent it from going downward
and turning into a semi-periphery.

Some IR scholars, influenced by Marxism, have developed the

Dependency Theory to explain the plight of the third world
countries. Some basic assumptions of the dependency theory come
closer to WST, although these two theories are different in the long
run. Mostly developed by Latin American scholars like Fernando
Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, the dependency theory puts
forward the argument that accumulation of capital in a third world
country cannot sustain itself internally. They provided instances
from Latin American countries to show that a nation’s own capital
was not adequate enough for its overall economic development.
Due to its long colonial past, a third world country became
perennially dependent on advanced states. A dependent country,
even if it accumulates self-sustaining capital, must borrow foreign
capital to produce goods, repay debts and build infrastructure for
development.

Although the dependency theorists do not highlight the overall

structural pattern of the world advanced by WST—like centre and
periphery—they focus on the disadvantageous conditions of the
peripheral states. For instance, the issue of economic development
in a peripheral state is dependent on several conditions, some of
which are internal, some external. Internal conditions include the
class relationship within the society, the country’s history, and the
present political system. External conditions comprise the
presence of foreign capital, the MNCs, and global economic and
political preferences. The national government of a peripheral state
has little control over these internal and external conditions, and
as a consequence, its developmental efforts suffer. In this context,
dependency theorists have coined the idea of ‘enclave economy’ in
which foreign capital is invested in a peripheral country in order to
extract raw materials like minerals and plantations, but the sale of
products from these raw materials takes place in foreign lands. As
a result, the local enclave (state) does not benefit economically,
except some jobs for a small group of population. But its natural
resources get depleted in the process and the enclave continues to
suffer from lack of development. In another form of dependency
that emerged in the postcolonial era, the local capitalist class
controls production, sells products in local and foreign markets,
earns profits, and reinvests these profits in (national) capitalist-
controlled local production to earn more profits. This cycle helps to
build a strong local bourgeois class which is not different in
orientation from the foreign bourgeoisie, because its interests
converge with the interests of the foreign capitalists. This class is
more concerned with its own profits, makes haphazard
industrialization within the state, and is not interested in the
overall development of the country. These local capitalists
constitute the centre within the periphery, while majority of the
poor population and the areas which they inhabit remain the
periphery within the periphery. As a consequence development
suffers immensely in third world countries. This analysis of WST
helps us to identify the basic features of the theory and its leading
proponents. They are presented in Box 2.7.

An Evaluation of World System Theory

The World System theory has been criticized by the neo-liberals as

a poor replication of Marxism and its ideas of wealth accumulation
and class division. By indicating class division on a regional basis,
WST has created further confusion. For instance, it is difficult to
assume that capitalists of a region would always share same class
interests and would transcend nationalism for common economic
interests. For the neo-realists, nationalism is more important in
international affairs than class conflicts based on common
economic interests of opposing classes. In other words, neo-realists
believe that causes of conflict in IR are rooted in power aspirations
of nations, and not in class consciousness of people in a region.
Moreover, the economic base of class has also been criticized by
neo-liberals. Classes may also be formed on the basis of political
power or social configuration (and not only on economic factors),
in both ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ regions; but the proponents of WST
have ignored this reality.
 Box 2.7: World System Theory: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 Influenced by Marxism and its idea of accumulation of wealth.

 Class divisions have assumed a regional character in the postcolonial world.
 The world is divided into ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ regions (in terms of wealth accumulation), a
system in which the rich capitalist core regions dominate over the poor periphery, mainly the third world
regions.
 Semi-periphery is not as advanced as the core, but ahead of the periphery in terms of wealth
accumulation.
 There may be core (centre) and periphery within the ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ regions; the new class
struggle would involve the core and the periphery.
 Dependency theory, which comes closer to WST, suggests that due to historical reasons, the third
world remains dependent on external foreign capital.
 ‘Enclave Economy’ and national capitalists are responsible for underdevelopment in the third
world region.

Leading Theorists: I. Wallerstein, A. G. Frank, S. Amin, F. H.

Cardoso, E. Faletto (Dependency Theory).

Wallerstein argued that capitalism failed to bring about industrial

development in the periphery, but suggested that some industrial
development had taken place in the semi-periphery. This view of
Wallerstein, a leading protagonist of WST, remained quite unclear.
A semi-periphery did not emerge overnight; it grew out of a
periphery. If this proposition is correct, then it would not be
difficult to assume that some wealth accumulation had taken place
in the periphery itself, facilitating, in a very small scale, the process
of industrialization in the periphery. In other words, roots of
industrialization originated in the periphery, and flourished, to
some extent, in the semi-periphery. Therefore, local capitalists did
initiate some industrialization in the periphery. If one recalls core
(centre) and periphery regions within a periphery as advanced by
the proponents of WST, then the role of national capitalists living
in the core area within the periphery could not be ignored.

The current trading pattern in the world, however, justifies some of

the views of WST. The ‘core’ countries of the West export more
manufactured goods, chemicals and machinery than their imports
of these items. The ‘periphery’ regions of Asia, Africa and Latin
America export more agricultural products, minerals and textiles;
and import more machinery, chemicals and other important
technologies from the West. As these items are more costly than
agricultural and textile products, the periphery does not benefit
much economically, and remains dependent on the core. The core
uses its economic advantage to gain political mileage, and acts as
the ‘centre’ in world politics. Therefore WST helps, to some extent,
in analysing current trends in international affairs.

GAME THEORY

Originally conceived by the Hungarian-American mathematician

John Von Neumann, game theory has been widely applied in social
sciences since the 1950s. At later stages, the theory was reinforced
by the works of scholars like Osker Morgenstern, Anatol Rapoport,
Martin Shubik and John Nash. The theory has been useful in
analysing situations of conflict, competition and cooperation. It
became popular with social scientists because for every society and
every state, these issues are important. The theory also finds its
application in IR, because conflict, competition and cooperation
among nation-states form important areas of discussion in the
discipline. Game theory helps in explaining and addressing social
problems. Since games often reflect real situations—especially
competitive or cooperative situations—they can suggest strategies
or ways for dealing with such circumstances. As we may
understand the strategy of players in a particular game, we may
also be able to predict how people, political factions or nation-
states will behave in a given situation.

Situations in the real world, including international relations, may

replicate any game. Just as players normally try to win games,
people in real life also try to win or achieve their goals in
competitive situations. However, both in games and in the real
world, we have to follow a set of rules to pursue, and finally
achieve, our interests or goals. Some games, like some real
situations, are intensely competitive, where only one player can
win. Chess is an example of such a game. Other games, like football
or baseball, require cooperation to win. Similarly, in the real world,
some situations demand cooperation even during times of
hostility; because rivals here generally share common interests,
and must cooperate to some degree for the sake of such common
interests. During the Cold War, for instance, despite an intense
East-West rivalry, America and the Soviet Union had to cooperate
to achieve their common interest of averting a nuclear war.
 Game theory usually supports a decision-making approach based
on the assumption of rationality of players in a situation of
competition. Each player tries to maximize gains or minimize
losses under conditions of uncertainty and incomplete
information. This situation requires each player to rank
preferences, estimate probabilities, and try to discern what the
other player is going to do. During the Cold War, both the US and
the USSR played such a game of ‘one-upmanship’. Both wanted to
maximize their gains, or at best tried to minimize their losses
under conditions of uncertainty. The game theory suggests several
types of games. For example, in a two-person zero-sum game, what
one player (or actor) wins, the other loses; if A wins 7, B loses 7,
and the outcome is zero. The ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’, analysed later,
is an example of this zero-sum game. In a two-person non-
zero or variable sum game, gains and losses are not necessarily
equal; it is possible that both sides may gain. This is sometimes
referred to as a positive-sum game. In some games, both parties
may lose, and by different amounts or to a different degree. The so-
called n-person game includes more than two actors or sides. IR
today resembles, to some extent, the n-person game.

Game theory may help in examining strategic interactions among

two or more participants. By using easy, sometimes numerical,
models to study complex social (including international) relations,
this theory can analyse the potential for, and dangers of,
cooperative behaviour among distrustful and competing
participants. It has five major concepts:
1. players or decision-makers;
2. strategies available to each player, which take into account the potential behaviour of opponents;
3. rules governing players’ behaviour;
4. outcome, each of which is a result of particular choices made by players at a given point in the
game;
5. pay-off, accrued by each player as a result of each possible outcome.

The theory assumes that in any game each player would pursue
strategies within a set of rules that help him or her to achieve the
most profitable outcome in every situation, and get the maximum
pay-offs. In the field of IR, nation-states are the players or actors
who pursue strategies to achieve the most profitable outcome. In
order to achieve a mutually productive outcome, the states must
coordinate their strategies, because if each state pursues its
 greatest potential pay-offs, the shared outcome is unproductive.
This confusion has been illustrated by the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’
game. This and other games illustrate the potential for cooperation
to produce mutually beneficial outcomes. However, they also
highlight the difficulties of obtaining cooperation among
distrustful participants, because each player is tempted to pursue
his or her individual interests. Cooperation requires that both
players compromise, and forego their individual maximum pay-
offs. Yet, in compromising, each player risks complete loss if the
opponent decides to seek the maximum pay-off. Rather than
risking total loss, players tend to prefer the less productive
outcome.

Prisoner’s Dilemma: An Example of the Zero-Sum Game

‘Prisoner’s dilemma’ is one of the important games propagated by

the game theory. It illustrates the paradoxical nature of interaction
between two suspicious participants with opposing interests. In
this hypothetical situation, two accomplices in a crime are
imprisoned, and they enter into a pact not to betray one another
and not to confess the crime. The severity of the punishment that
each may receive is determined not only by their behaviour, but
also by the behaviour of their accomplices. The two prisoners are
separated and cannot communicate with each other. Each is
provided with four possible outcomes:
1. if one confesses to the crime and puts the blame on the accomplice—thereby defecting from the
pact—their sentence would be reduced;
2. if one confesses, but their accomplice does not—that is, the accomplice cooperates with the pact
not to betray each other—the first prisoner can strike a deal with the police and would be set free. But the
information they provide will be used against the second prisoner, who would receive the maximum
punishment;
3. if both individuals confess to the crime—that is, both defect from their pact—then each receives a
reduced sentence, but no one is set free;
4. if neither confesses to the crime—that is, they cooperate—then each prisoner receives minimum
sentence because of the lack of evidence. This option may not be equally attractive to either person, as the
chance of striking a deal with the police and being set free at the expense of one’s partner is wasted. Since
the prisoners are not in a position to communicate with each other, the question of whether to ‘trust’ the
other not to confess is the most crucial aspect of the game.

The game prisoner’s dilemma can be used to examine complex

situations in international relations like strategic interactions and
arms race between countries. If two rival countries build up their
stock of armaments in uncontrolled ways, they increase the
potential for mutual loss and destruction. For each country, the
gain of arming itself is decreased because the costs of arming—
financial costs, increased security tensions, greater mutual
destructive capabilities—provide few advantages over the
opponent, resulting in an unproductive outcome. However, each
country has a choice here—either to cooperate to control arms
build-up, with the goal of achieving mutual benefits, or defect from
the pact and build armaments. The dilemma stems from the
realization that if one country arms itself (defects) and the other
does not (cooperates), the country that builds armaments will be
considered stronger and will win the game. If both cooperate, the
best possible outcome is a tie. This is better than the pay-off from
mutual defection and an arms race, but it is not as attractive as
winning. The temptation to beat one’s opponent in the arms race is
always present. The fear that one’s opponent will give in to such
temptations often drives both nations to arms, because not doing
so risks total loss. The benefits of not arming can only be realized if
one’s opponent overcomes the temptation to win. Such trust is
often lacking in international politics.

The supporters of the game theory cite the US-Soviet relationship

as an example of the game ‘prisoner’s dilemma’. During the Cold
War, the two countries never trusted each other. Each country
spent astronomical amounts to arm itself, fearing that the other
one was doing the same, and not wanting to lag behind. But the
cost incurred in the arms race was so high that it eventually made
one player (Soviet Union) to run bankrupt. Had both the nations
trusted each other, much of the arms race—as also financial losses,
and security tensions for both and also for the rest of the world—
could have been avoided. However, the lessons initially drawn
from the game ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ can be discouraging. The game
illustrates a zero-sum situation, in which one player must lose for
the other to win. To keep from losing, each player is motivated to
pursue a ‘winning’ strategy. The collective result is unproductive at
best, and destructive at worst.

However, an extended version of the game ‘prisoner’s dilemma’

game calls for repeated interaction, which enhances the probability
of cooperative behaviour. The logic of this version of the game
suggests that a player’s strategy (to defect or cooperate) depends
on his experience in previous interactions, and that that strategy
will also affect the future behaviour of the opponent. The result is a
relationship of mutual reciprocity. An actor is likely to cooperate if
the opponent had wanted to cooperate previously, and is unlikely
to cooperate if the opponent had not. The assumption that the
game will be played again leads players (actors) to consider the
consequences of their actions. An opponent may retaliate or be
unwilling to cooperate in the future, if one actor always seeks
maximum pay-offs at the expense of the other player. This analysis
of the game theory leads us to identify some characteristics of the
theory along with its main proponents, which are presented in Box
2.8.

An Evaluation of Game Theory

Game theory has not only contributed to the development of

models of deterrence and arms race, but it has also provided the
basis for work concerning the issue of how collaboration among
competitive states in an anarchic world could be achieved. These
models may provide insights into the strategic options and likely
outcomes available to participants in particular situations. From
such insights, decision-makers may assess the potential effects of
their actions, and may make decisions that would help to achieve
the desired goals. For example, deterrence theory has persisted in
US defence strategies since the end of the Second World War.
Deterrence assumes that a credible and significant threat of
retaliation may curb an aggressor’s behaviour. However, if two
states recognize that their best interests lie in avoiding each other’s
retaliation, neither is likely to initiate hostilities. This was the
guiding principle behind US-Soviet relations during much of the
Cold War. The concept of mutual deterrence paved the way for
arms-control measures and further cooperation. By highlighting
strategic choices and potential collective outcomes, game theory
helped in illustrating how a potentially destructive relationship
could be managed and transformed to provide mutual benefits,
including measures to control arms race and nuclear war.

Box 2.8: Game Theory: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features
 The theory is useful in analysing situations of conflict, competition and cooperation.
 Since games often resemble real situations—especially competitive or cooperative situations—they
can suggest strategies or ways for dealing with such circumstances.
 The theory is useful for IR too, because conflict, competition and cooperation among nation-states
form important areas of discussion in the discipline.
 The theory usually supports a decision-making approach based on the assumption of rationality of
players in a situation of competition. Each player tries to maximize gains or minimize losses under
conditions of uncertainty. During the Cold War, both the US and the USSR played such a game. They both
wanted to maximize their gains, or at best, tried to minimize their losses, under conditions of uncertainty.
 The theory suggests several types of games: two-person zero-sum game; two-person non-
zero or variable sum (chicken) game; the n-person game which includes more than two actors or sides, etc.
IR today resembles, to some extent, the n-person game.
 ‘Prisoner’s dilemma’ is one of the important games propagated by the theory. It illustrates the
paradoxical nature of interaction between two suspicious participants with opposing interests.
 The theory has five major concepts: players, strategies, rules, outcome and pay-off.

Leading Theorists: J. V. Neumann, O. Morgenstern, A.

Rapoport, M. Shubik, J. Nash.

The game theory fails to answer why states as actors are often
irrational, and why they are guided by different notions of
rationality. A central problem is that the rational decision for an
individual actor such as the state may be to ‘defect’ and go it alone
as opposed to taking a chance in collaborating with another state
actor. Thomas Schelling has questioned the validity of the game
theory in its zero sum form. He believes that the zero sum game
has contributed very little to the solution of the problems such as
limited war, surprise attacks, atomic blackmail and massive
retaliation. He provides a detailed criticism of the game theory on
this issue. According to him the essence of international politics
lies in the existence of conflict and mutual dependence which
demands some kind of cooperation and accommodation among
states. This situation presupposes that there should be an
interdependence of expectations. In other words, the choice of a
state largely depends on what it expects from other states.

Schelling believes that since the range of alternatives is very large,

bargaining becomes necessary. He holds that if bargaining results
in the convergence of mutually consistent expectations, there
would be suggestions exchanged by the players and that
collaboration and accommodation can be carried on by basic
motives of commitments, promises or threats. The concept of zero
sum game is valid only in the case of war. But in the study of
international relations, war is not the only issue demanding
analysis. In situations other than war, there are elements of
cooperation and accommodation as well. These situations are
mostly bargaining situations in which conflict and cooperations
can be found. Bargaining situations are different from the zero sum
game because the latter has no scope for collaboration.

Richard Snyder has warned against premature application of

mathematical models to political problems. According to him, two
factors contribute to the premature application of the game theory
to politics. First, the game theory or certain games advocated by
the theory might not be sufficiently developed to analyse all
political problems properly. Second, political science or IR, in the
reverse way, may not be ready yet to use many of the sophisticated
models developed by mathematicians or statisticians. Therefore, it
is wise not to be too euphoric about mathematical models provided
by the game theory.

DECISION-MAKING THEORY

The Decision-making Theory in IR seeks to focus on the decision-

making aspects for analyses of policies of nation-states. The
subjects of enquiry in this theory mainly relate to issues like how
and why ruling elites of states behave in certain ways in
international relations. One of the key assumptions of the theory
holds that political actions follow ways which the decision-makers
as ‘actors’ want them to follow. Therefore, the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of a
political action, and the reasons behind it, are the preferred areas
of study in decision-making theory. In other words, the setting or
background in which policy decisions are made is studied by the
theory.

Decision-making theory in IR mainly focuses on foreign policy

decisions of countries and the setting in which these decisions are
taken. This setting or background has two sides: internal and
external. The ‘internal setting’ includes personality of decision-
makers; organizational structure and culture which may influence
the decision-makers; values and aspirations (goals) of society;
ideology of the party that runs the government; and technological
factors. The ‘external setting’ consists of broader political and
economic systems prevailing in the world; dominant values, such
as liberalism, socialism, and free or restricted trade; and also
technological factors. The theory gained tremendous popularity in
social science disciplines like economics, sociology, business
management, political science and IR. Decision-making theory,
which came to IR in the 1950s, is still very popular because it
anlyses interesting issues like how and why a nation behaves in a
particular manner in international relations, and reasons behind
such behaviours. Theorists like Richard Snyder, H. W. Bruck,
Burton Sapin, Harold and Margaret Sprout, Dean Rusk, and
Alexander and Juliette George have made important contributions
in the study of decision-making in IR.

What do we gain by analysing decisions of nations, or, in other

words, what is the purpose of the theory? This theory helps us to
identify important structures in the political system of a nation
where decisions are made. There may be formal or informal, and
known or not-so-known structures where decisions are formulated.
For instance, the Council of Ministers is a formal structure, but the
‘kitchen cabinet’ consisting of key members of the government is
an informal one. Both structures may be associated with the
decision-making proces. Again, the ruling party may be a known
institution for decision-making, but the influential ‘nucleus’ within
the party may be a little known caucus. Further, the systematic
analysis of decision-making may lead to unearth certain
behaviours or ‘actions’ of a certain state in the sphere of
international relations. Why India took military actions during the
Kargil crisis? Which decisions led to such actions? What led the US
to attack Iraq? These and many other inquiries could be met by the
decisionmaking theory. This theory sees the actions of the state
through the actions of the decision-makers.

While the mindset of the decision-makers influence the decisions

they make, actions taken on the basis of decisions consist of the
manifest behaviour of the actors. In other words, decisions belong
to the internal psychological world, whereas actions belong to the
external, manifest world. On the basis of these two, decisions and
actions, proponents of the theory have put emphasis on three
foundations of decision-making. These are: (1) environmental
factors; (2) psychological factors; and (3) real actors behind
decision-making. Environmental factors in the theory refer to a
milieu that is composed of psychological and operational aspects
which can set limits on the choice of the decision-maker. Harold
and Margaret Sprout have examined the relationship between the
environment and decision-making. They have analysed how the
decision-makers view the environment, and how environment may
remain outside the perception and estimate of the decisionmakers.
Put differently, a decision-maker may not have total control over
the environment as the Sprouts have defined them. They are
interested not in the origin of decisions, but rather in analysing
decisions after they are taken in the context of the environment,
and in the limits set by the environment. This approach helps in
making a comparative analysis of decisions. For instance, a foreign
policy, analysed with reference to environment, may be compared
with another foreign policy, and measures for improvement may
be suggested.

Proponents of psychological factors of decision-making take into

account the personality traits of the decision-maker, and how these
personality traits shape decisions and actions. Alexander and
Juliette George have studied the personality factor of the former
American President Woodrow Wilson, and anlysed how his
personality influenced his decisions. Although the impact of the
personality factor on the overall decision is not beyond doubt, it is
not totally irrelevant either. Personality factors of leaders like
Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mao and Indira Gandhi had profound
impact on their decision-making and actions. But the impact of
personality factors is dependent on the position of the decision-
maker in the policy-making structure, nature of the decision, and
value orientations of the decision-maker. If the decision-maker
occupies a central position in the policy making body, the impact of
their personality on decision-making would be greater. Stalin’s or
Indira’s personality would have been less pronounced on their
decisions, if they did not occupy central positions in decision-
making structures. The factor of personality is also dependent on
the nature of the decision. Decisions which involve crucial national
interests, such as the survival of the state, may have less
personality imprints. Values, beliefs and attitudes of the decision-
maker may shape their personality, and impact decision-making. A
decisionmaker, indoctrinated in Marxist ideology, would likely to
go for a socialist political system. Further, a leader with an
adventurous attitude may be inclined to make risky decisions. But
it must be mentioned here that personality factors are subjective,
and not beyond question in the process of decision-making.

Theorists like Bernard Cohen, Roger Hilsman and James Robinson

want to concentrate on the real actors or the actual makers of
foreign policy. Cohen identified five principal institutions in the
making of foreign policy: (1) specific actors in the executive (Head
of the Government, Foreign Minister and few other members of
the cabinet and bureaucracy); (2) specific committees in the
legislature; (3) concerned interest groups; (4) public opinion; and
(5) the mass media. He believes that these five agencies constitute
the core actors in foreign policy-making. Hilsman believes that a
foreign policy is the final outcome of a process of different
objectives of the executive and the legislature. Therefore, to
Hilsman, the executive and the legislature are the two real actors
behind foreign policy. Robinson believes, following his case study
on foreign policy-making in the US, that the legislature is the core
decision-maker in foreign policy issues. However, it should be
noted here that the nature of ‘core actors’ in foreign policy making
may vary from country to country, but the executive and the
legislature play important roles in almost all political systems.
Further, some individuals like the presidents, prime ministers,
foreign ministers, and some institutions like the executive,
legislature, bureaucracy and mass media act as important ‘actors’
in foreign policy making.

A few models have been developed by the theorists based on their

different approaches to the process of decision-making. Prominent
among these models are rational goals-ends model, quagmire
model and risk analysis model. According to the rational goals-
ends model, objectives or goals are first decided by the policy
maker; then the means to achieve these goals are decided upon. In
deciding the means to realize objectives, policy makers go through
‘rational’ and ‘comprehensive’ steps before arriving at any final
decision. These steps include all possible alternatives, analysed in a
rational way as far as possible, and a comprehensive outlook that
takes into account all inputs from different agents interested in
foreign policy. Therefore, according to this model, decisions are
rational policies to achieve certain objectives, as well as the means
to realize these objectives. The quagmire model believes that big
decisions are not made at any point by any single individual.
Decisions are not also made for any long-term goal. Decisions are
made in a piece-meal manner, in short ranges, and they are
continued step by step. In that sense, decisions are incremental; a
short-term decision may continue if the situation demands, and
can be converted into a long-term decision. The American decision
to involve itself in Vietnam was initially a short-term decision; but
as things turned out, it ultimately became a long-term policy with
incremental effects. This model is also known as the ‘quicksand’ or
the ‘incremental’ model. In the risk analysis model, possible
outcomes of each decision and action, and the risks involved, are
thoroughly examined. The objective is to carefully analyse
decisions and their possible effects when they are implemented.
The risk analysis technique is very popular in management
sciences and organizational behaviour where important decisions
are scrutinized before they are put into practice. In IR, this
technique has been adopted to examine foreign policy. These
analyses of the decision-making theory may now help us to identify
the basic assumptions of the theory, and some notable
protagonists, as presented in Box 2.9.

The decision-making theory is useful in unravelling the actions of

nation-states in international relations. By focussing on foreign
policy making and implementation, the decision-making theory
helps to solve the puzzle of states’ actions in international politics.
The theory tries to meet, sometimes successfully, the how and why
of a state’s actions. There is no denying the fact that international
relations are still primarily interactions among states. In a
community of states, the behavioural aspects of states make central
issues in the study of IR. Why states behave in a certain manner?
Why do they take particular actions? The decision-making theory
tries to answer these questions by examining the foreign policies of
states. Although it is not easy to grasp the totality of foreign policy,
this theory nevertheless has provided ways to examine the intricate
nature of foreign policy, and found out reasonable methods to
study the complex web of international affairs. IR revolves around
decisions, and the urge to properly study these important decisions
has provided significant research orientations to IR scholars.
Decision-making theory fulfills the need to study policy making
 and implementation which constitute crucial subject matters in
International Relations.

Box 2.9: Decision-making Theory: Basic Assumptions and Leading Theorists

Basic Assumptions

 Political actions follow ways which the decision-makers as ‘actors’ want them to follow.
 ‘How’ and ‘why’ of a political action, and the reasons behind it, are the preferred areas of study in
decision-making theory.
 This theory in IR mainly focuses on foreign policy decisions of countries and the setting in which
these decisions are taken.
 This setting or background has two sides: internal and external.
 This theory helps us to identify important structures in the political system of a nation where
decisions are made.
 There may be formal or informal, and known or not-so-known, structures where decisions are
formulated.
 Based on decisions and actions, there are three foundations of decision-making: (1) environmental
factors; (2) psychological factors; and (3) real actors behind decisionmaking.
 There are three important approaches to the decision-making theory: (1) rational goals-ends
model; (2) quagmire model; and (3) risk analysis model.

Leading Theorists: R. Snyder, H. W. Bruck, B. Sapin, H. Sprout

and M. Sprout, B. Cohen, A. George and J. George, R. Hilsman, J.
Robinson.

But decision-making is very much a subjective element which is

difficult to study from an objective value-free approach. The
environmental factor or the personality factor can never be entirely
objective. When the decision-making theory refers to the
psychological ‘internal’ aspects of decision-making, it plunges into
a world of the unknown. Here lies the greatest paradox of the
theory. It aims to study foreign policy as objectively as possible, but
refers to psychological factors or personality factors as important
elements in decision-making. Is it possible to read a statesman’s
mind fully objectively? Can an individual who occupies the central
position in decision-making be totally value free? These crucial
questions go unanswered in the decision-making theory.

Are decisions fully rational, as suggested by the rational goals-ends

model? Although decisions are products of rationality when they
are made, but they may appear to be quite ‘irrational’ when they
are put into ‘action’. This complexity may create problems in
studying both ‘decisions’ and actions of the state. If a ‘rational’
decision becomes an irrational action, the researcher would be in
great trouble. America’s Vietnam policy may be cited here as an
example. When the US got involved in Vietnam for the first time,
the decision, taken after comprehensive discussions, appeared
rational. But later on the same decision appeared to be irrational
when the American public opinion condemned the Vietnam policy.
Therefore, decisions are not always rational and objective, and they
can never be studied fully objectively. But subjective assessment of
foreign policy may create more difficulties in the study of IR. Due
to this dichotomy, the decision-making theory fails to become an
adequate theory to study the complex nature of IR today.

SYSTEMS THEORY

The systems theory owes its origin to biology, particularly to the

writings of Ludwig Von Bertallanfy, a noted biologist of the 1920s.
From biology, the systems theory came to anthropology, sociology
and political science. Sytems theory in IR was first introduced in
the mid-1950s by a group of American scholars. Since then, this
approach has become popular in analysing the courses of IR. To
understand this theory, it is necessary to know what a ‘system’ is.
According to Bertallanfy (1968: 11), the founder of the systems
theory, a system ‘is a set of elements standing in interaction’.
James Rosenau, a scholar of IR believes that ‘a system is
considered to exist in an environment and to be composed of parts
which through interaction are in relation to each other’ (1961: 35).
Proponents of the theory hold that every system has many
components. First, every system has clearly identifibale ‘elements’.
The elements of the solar system are the sun and the planets.
Similarly, the elements of international system are the nation-
states. Second, a system must have a set of ‘relationships’ among
elements. The elements must interact and remain interdependent
to engage themselves in relationships. For example, the family may
be called a system because its elements, the individual members,
interact with one another and remain interdependent. In the
international system, nation-states interact with one another, and
are dependent on one another.

The third characteristc of a system is the concept of ‘boundary’.

This boundary separates a sytem from other phenomena like the
broader environment and other systems. A systems theorist must
know where a system begins and where it ends, and must have a
clear notion of the boundary of a system. Without boundaries, a
system is incomplete. However, everything around us does not
constitute a system. For instance, people present in a supermarket
at a particular time do not make a system, because they do not
share any relationship and are not inderdependent. So, a system
consists of three things: identifiable elements; relationship among
elements; and clear notion of boundary. A system has sub-systems.
For example, in the solar system, the earth and its satellite, the
moon, constitute a sub-system. Similarly, in the international
system, regional organizations— such as the ASEAN or the SAARC
—form one type of sub-systems.

The proponents of the systems theory in IR believe that a scientific

study of international relations is possible if the interactions
among nation-states and their levels of interdependence can be
satisfactorily analysed. For instance, Morton Kaplan, one of the
best known systems theorist of IR, holds that interaction and
interdependence of nation-states are to be examined in order to
have a good knowledge about the international system. This, he
maintains, could be done with the help of six models of
international system. These are: (1) balance of power system; (2)
loose bipolar system; (3) tight bipolar system; (4) universal actor
system; (5) hierarchical international system; and (6) unit veto
system. A few words about the six models are necessary to
understand Kaplan’s views.

The balance of power system works on the basis of interaction and

interdependence among the major powers in international politics.
Five to six major powers in the world, more or less equal in
strength, maintain a balance in international politics by increasing
and showing their strengths. Each state is aware of the strength of
others, and is not normally inclined to alter the balance. For
example, if state A knows that military and economic strengths of
states B, C, D, E, and F are equal to those of its own, it would not
risk antagonizing them. This way a balance, though precarious,
would be maintained in world politics. In fact, this balance of
power system existed in the world for three-and-a-half centuries,
from the seventeenth to the mid-twentieth century, when five to six
major powers controlled international politics through
understanding and negotiations. According to Kaplan, this system
may get disturbed if any of the actors (states) does not follow the
rules of the game, that is, if any actor gains strength tremendously,
the balance may be destroyed. This would also mean a shift in the
decision-making process of the actor towards more ambitious
national interests.

According to Kaplan, the balance of power system, if destroyed,

may result in a loose bipolar system where two states become
dominant, and control world politics. After the Second World War,
two main actors, the US and the USSR, controlled world politics by
leading opposing blocs of states. This system, which lasted till 1991,
could be termed as a loose bipolar system. Under this system, the
two superpowers were surrounded by groups of smaller powers
and non-aligned countries. The attachment of non-aligned
countries to either of the superpowers, according to Kaplan, made
the system loose. Moreover, unlike the balance of power system,
there were no set of rules to be followed by the leading actors of the
system.

The tight bipolar system, which may develop after the collapse of

the loose bipolar system, is different from the latter in several
ways. Non-aligned states, who made the previous system loose,
would not hang around with the principal actors. The system
would operate only around two main actors, leading two tightly
controlled super blocs. But the stability of the system would
remain only when the states of the two super blocs are
hierarchically organized. This presupposes tight control of the
leaders of respective super blocs. If this hierarchy dissolves, it
tends to give way to a loose bipolar system again.

The universal actor system may also develop after the loose

bipolar system. Under this system, the universal actor, such as the
UN, is powerful enough to control the national actors (individual
states). This system would be a highly integrated system,
possessing integrated mechanisms which would perform political,
economic, judicial and administrative functions. The national
actors would be allowed to pursue their objectives, but within the
framework set by the universal actor. The system would work on
the basis of the value structure of national actors to pursue their
objectives through peaceful methods, and to avoid the threat of
force. Prestige and rewards will be given to national actors, as also
to individual human beings for adhering to the norms of the
system. The universal actor would be able to restrict the national
actors from resorting to war. But this system would witness initial
instability because the national actors would like to pursue power
to fulfill their objectives, but once the universal actor establishes its
control, the sytem would stabilize.

In the hierarchical international system, one universal actor

would control world politics. This system can be both directive and
non-directive. If the international order is controlled by one
national actor like Nazi Germany, this system would be directive.
But if the controlling national actor follows principles of
democracy, it would be non-directive. In the directive hierarchical
system, there would be greater tension within the sytem as small
actors would feel insecure and threatened. But in the non-directive
hierarchical system there would be lesser tension due to the
prevalence of democratic principles.

The unit veto system is one where all national actors are

immensely powerful and can destroy one another. Under this
system, all actors possess highly destructive weapons, such as
WMDs, to finish others. It is a system similar to the state of nature
described by Hobbes where all are selfish and quarrelsome, and
target others.

Through these six models of interaction among nation-states,

Kaplan elucidated his views about the international system.
According to him, one political system can be distinguished from
other systems by its rules which clearly specify areas of jurisdiction
and methods of conflict resolution. He believes that physical force
is necessary to make the political system survive because for
conflict resolution, which is a major function of the political
system, physical force may be ultimately required. Kaplan criticizes
the realists for their emphasis on ‘power’, saying that the realist
zeal for power failed to distinguish between the ‘political’ and the
‘non-political’. The realists made power so ubiquitous that it
included everything, even the family and the peer groups. But
 relationships in these groups are non-political, and therefore may
remain outside the purview of power, unlike the nation-states.

The idea of an international system where nation-states are the

main ‘elements’, and their interactions make the system survive, is
not beyond controversy. Scholars like C. W. Manning support the
idea of the international system resting on nation-states, whereas
others like Kenneth Boulding and John Herz feel that the nation-
state itself is facing many crises to remain a major ‘element’ in the
system. Manning believes that the concepts of sovereignty,
national interest, institutionalized diplomacy and international law
make the nation-states very strong as pillars of the international
system. But Boulding and Herz think that the impact of atomic
weapons, globalization and stellite communication has made them
weak and, therefore, the international system based on nation-
states may not be identified as a proper system. Even Kaplan had
doubts about IR being seen as a proper systematic discipline. He
preferred to see international relations as a sub-discipline of
political science. However, it was he who made a thorough
application of the sytems theory to the study of IR. We are now in a
position to identify the basic assumptions of the systems theory in
IR, and its main protagonists. These are presented in Box 2.10.

Box 2.10: Systems Theory in IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 The theory owes its origin to biology, particularly to the writings of Ludwig Von Bertallanfy.
 Sytems theory in IR was first introduced in the middle of the 1950s by a group of American
scholars.
 A system is a set of elements standing in interaction; in IR, nation-states are the ‘elements’
engaged in interactions.
 A system consists of three things: identifiable elements, relationship among elements and clear
notion of boundary.
 A system has sub-systems. In the international system, regional organizations—the ASEAN, the
SAARC, for example—form one type of sub-systems.
 Proponents of systems theory in IR believe that a scientific study of international relations is
possible if the interactions among nation-states and their levels of interdependence can be satisfactorily
analysed.
 For Morton Kaplan, interaction and interdependence among states could be analysed in terms of
six models of international system: (1) balance of power system; (2) loose bipolar system; (3) tight bipolar
system; (4) universal actor system; (5) hierarchical international system; and (6) unit veto system.
 C. W. Manning supports the idea of the international system resting on nation-states, whereas
scholars like Kenneth Boulding and John Herz feel that the nation-state itself is facing many crises to
remain major ‘elements’ of the system.

Leading Theorists: M. Kaplan, C. W. Manning, K. Boulding, H.

Guetzkow.

An Evaluation of Systems Theory in International Relations

The systems theory perceives international relations as a system

where nation-states are the main actors. But it is difficult to put the
whole range of IR, which is not very organized, within the systems
framework. IR is not only interactions among states, several non-
state actors and individuals exert considerable influence on IR
today. The systems theory failed to recognize their roles within the
framework of the international system. It may envisage
methodological problems, because the concept of ‘elements’ is not
very clear here. The theory considered nation-states as ‘elements’
leaving out several important non-state elements of the
international system which play significant roles in international
politics today. Another methodological problem relates to the
concept of ‘environment’ which is also not clear in this theory.
Since the international system encompasses almost everything,—
from political to economic, to cultural, to scientific,—what remains
outside the purview of its scope? In other words, since IR discusses
almost every problem in the world, what is left out as environment
here? The idea of interaction of elements with environment, in the
form of receiving inputs and providing outputs, sounds confusing.
If the whole world is the subject-matter of study in IR, what
remains as the environment? Therefore, the concept of
environment is either absent or is very limited in the international
system, as perceived by the proponents of the theory.

Among the six models of the international system advocated by

Kaplan, three are highly improbable. The first among the three is
the universal actor system where the universal actor is sufficiently
strong to restrict national actors from using the threat of force or
resorting to war. Is it possible for any universal actor like the UNO
to restrict the ambitions of several national actors? If any national
actor thinks that its national interest demands the use of force, it
will not hesitate to use force. Moreover, what is the source of
strength of the universal actor? Kaplan is not very explicit about
the source. Is there any guarantee that all national actors would
follow a value structure as propounded by Kaplan? In the final
analysis, the universal actor system suffers from several defects,
and it is unlikely to be a reality in international relations. The
hierarchical international system also suffers from maladies. It is
difficult to achieve the non-directive hierarchical system based on
democratic principles. We may respect and love democratic ideals,
but there is little reason to believe that the whole international
system would be run according to democratic values. On the
contrary, directive hierarchical order like the Nazi rule would be
more visible in international politics, because there would always
be rogue states to break the normal preferences. Finally, the unit
veto system resembling the Hobbes’ state of nature is also an
improbability in today’s international relations. Even if every state
possesses highly destructive weapons, the whole world may not be
destroyed, because that would be suicidal for every state, and
would work against the national interest of every actor. On the
contrary, anti-weapons movements would be strengthened,
because that would save the world and the international system.
After all, making the system survive may fulfill every actor’s
national interest.

But the systems theory in IR has made some notable contributions

to the discipline. The systems theory made the study of IR more
organized and focused. It also provided ways for the international
system to survive, and adapt itself to changes. A system is an
integrated one where all elements work to make the system
survive. In the international system, the nation-states, knowingly
or unknowingly, help the system to survive and progress.
Moreover, the inputs the system receives from the environment
help it to adapt to new and newer demands, and to accommodate
itself to changes. This becomes manifest through the outputs
produced by the system. Despite crises, the international system
had survived and progressed. Systems theory of IR strongly sends
the message that by adapting itself to changes, the international
system would become an efficient system where the nations-states
would be more engaged in cooperation and mutual development.

COMMUNICATION THEORY
Communication theory in IR owes its origin to cybernetics, which
is a systematic study of communication and control in
organizations. The initial contributions towards the development
of communication theory came from Norbert Weiner in the 1940s.
He noted that major wartime advances in electronic
communication, such as sonar, radar and radar-controlled anti-
aircraft weapons, involved transfer of information. He identified
that these communication processes in machines were similar to
human, social and institutional processes. In other words, Weiner
believed that basic similarities existed among electronic signals,
human nerve cells and governmental functions. They are all goal-
oriented systems which share and transmit information. It was
Karl Deutsch who followed Weiner’s logic and brought the concept
of cybernetics to study international relations. Deutsch, the
pioneer of communication theory in IR, pointed out that
cybernetics was important to politics because it provided an
alternative to power, which, according to him, was ‘steering’.
Modern politics, domestic or international, is not rooted in power
as the realists suggest but in ‘steering’, believes Deutsch. A
government’s primary function, according to Deutsch, is to steer
the nation and not to engage in power, which may be dangerous for
the country.

In his book The Nerves of Government: Models of Political

Communication and Control, Deutsch argued that cybernetics, as
the study of communication and control, offers a general
perspective on all kinds of politics. Communications remain at the
centre of politics, and form the ‘nerves of government’. The study
of communications may help us to know how messages flow
among decision-makers, and how such messages contribute
towards making decisions. Cybernetics is applicable to any system
that possesses adequate organization, communication and control;
any system where messages are frequently transferred, retrieved,
stored, and responded. The international political system fulfills
these criteria, and hence the study of communication flows help to
analyse international politics. Transmission of messages, whether
through electronic machines, human interactions or nerve cells,
are always significant to any system—electronic, biological or
social. Communication flow is also very important in international
politics, and a proper study of these communications may bring
out the core of international politics.

How does this communication network operate? Proponents of

communication theory have identified several mechanisms
through which flow of communication takes place. These are: (1)
information; (2) entropy; (3) load; (4) lag; (5) distortion; (6) gain;
(7) lead; and (8) feedback. In order to understand the theory, a few
words about these mechanisms of communication are
necessary. Information is knowledge about events taking place in
the system. In case of IR, it would mean knowledge about events
and processes in the international system. Information is generally
transmitted through communication and can be reproduced,
stored, quantified and measured. This information is the backbone
of any communication. The idea of entropy comes from ther-
modyanamics. It refers to the tendency of a closed system to decay.
According to Wiener, every organized thing, whether a living being
or a machines, is prone to decay. A closed political system is,
therefore, prone to entropy and requires strong flow of
communications. The concept of load refers to the gap between the
goals of a political system and the information about its changing
environment. The environment may put stress on the system. Any
system, the international political system included, has to bear
with load. If the system can take on the load, it can function
efficiently. Conversely, inability to handle load may make the
system vulnerable. Excessive demands may put stress on the
system and create loads. For instance, the demand for equal rights
of states may create load in international relations and lead to
conflicts.

The idea of load is dependent on the flow of informtion. The time

taken between the realization of load (reception of information)
and sending of response to it is called lag. In other words, it is the
time taken by the decision-makers to respond to the information
about load. The greater the lag, the more inefficient the system is.
Conversely, an efficient political system could respond to the
information about load more quickly. Distortion is an idea close to
lag. It refers to the changes that take place in information when it
is received and when it is responded to. The system would be in
trouble if much distortion takes place. The concept of gain refers to
the reaction of a system to load, and the amount of changes the
system makes due to load. If the change is substantial the gain is
more and vice versa. The idea of gain helps to measure the speed
and extent of the decision-maker’s reaction to load. For instance, if
political or military measures are taken quickly in response to a
sudden attack, it may amount to gain.

The idea of lead refers to the ability of an organization to assess

elements of future stress, anticipate incoming loads, and make
necessary adjustments in advance. It provides information about
future crises. A system that is more capable in making such
predictions is more efficient than one which cannot secure
‘lead’. Feedback is information about the success or failure of
decision-makers’ reactions to load. It may help to improve the
responses to loads or crises. The quality of feedback that the
decision-makers receive about their responses may bring out the
effectiveness of the system. A self-regulatory system is more likely
to provide quality feedbacks. Feedback helps to shape further
decisions and responses, and is, therefore, an important-
mechanism in the communication flow. Learning refers to
accquiring and upgrading knowledge about the system, based on
information. Load, lag, gain and feedback help to augment
learning. The learning mechanism is a continuous process in the
communication approach. It helps the organization to work against
entropy and makes it stronger and more efficient. These are some
of the important mechanisms of cybernetics, as presented by
communication theory in IR. The efficacy of a government can be
measured in terms of these mechanisms, as the following
illustration would show.

The failure of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka
during 1987-89 could be analysed with reference to the
communication theory. All governments depend on
communication system for effective functioning. During the IPKF
operations in Sri Lanka, at least six mechanisms of communication
showed marked weakness. Information channels were poor. The
Indian government had little knowledge when it agreed to send the
IPKF to Sri Lanka that the force would be targeted and killed by
the Tamil militants like the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Ealam). The government was unable to secure lead as it failed to
 assess and anticipate future stress. Such poor information and
failure to get lead created load on the government, which resulted
in lag when the government responded in a slipshod manner.
Moreover, due to weak feedback mechanism, the government was
not in a position to corner any positive gain. As a consequence, the
IPKF had to be withdrawn finally when there were huge setbacks
in terms of killing of Indian soldiers, drainage on the exchequer,
and overall political and military embarrasment. In this case, the
change was insufficient and negative, resulting in lesser gain. As
this example shows, it is possible to analyse issues in IR by the
communication theory.

This analysis of the communication theory leads us to identify

some basic assumptions of the theory and its important
proponents. These are given in Box 2.11.

Box 2.11: Communication Theory: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 The theory is based on cybernetics.

 It holds that similarities exist among electronic signals, human nerve cells and governmental
functions. They are all goal-oriented systems which share and transmit information.
 The theory believes that modern politics, domestic or international, is not rooted in power, as the
realists suggest, but in ‘steering’.
 Cybernetics is applicable to any system which possesses adequate organization, communication
and control; and where messages are frequently transfered, retrieved, stored and responded.
 Communication and control (cybernetics) is very important in international politics.
 The theory identifies several mechanisms through which the flow of communication takes place:
(1) information; (2) entropy; (3) load; (4) lag; (5) distortion; (6) gain; (7) lead; and (8) feedback.
 It analyses issues in IR through these mechanisms of communication.

Leading Theorists: N. Weiner, K. Deutsch, J. Burton.

An Evaluation of Communication Theory

Communication theory opens up new and unexplored areas in the

study of international relations. By focusing on the value of
information and communication in international politics, this
theory could provide an alternative to power politics. This
alternative was the idea of ‘steering’, based on communication. The
communication model was also able to replace traditional concepts
of IR. According to John Burton, by focusing on the decision-
making processes in the perspective of communication flow, this
theory replaced the static concepts of balance of power, and the
traditional notion of politics as a struggle for power. The idea of
politics based on power proves the inability of the political system
to make adjustments and changes according to the needs of time,
thinks Burton. Communication theory, according to him, also
helps in policy planning and policy analysis. In the nuclear age, it is
important to know policies of states and how decisions are made
and implemented by nations. This theory also helps to understand
a state’s reaction to issues and events in IR, as noted in the
example provided earlier about the IPKF in Sri Lanka.

But critics of this theory contend that the model of cybernetics is

not applicable to all political problems. Cybernetics is very helpful
in engineering but not in international relations, because IR does
not constitute a ‘system’ in the real sense of the term.
Unprecedented expansion of IR today is not suitable for the
cybernetics model which works effectively in smaller circuits. Davis
Bobrow, for instance, believes that not all issues in IR could fit into
the cybernetics model. It would be cumbersome to examine all
events and issues in IR in terms of the mechanisms of cybernetics
such as load, lag, lead, entropy orgain. Moreover, steering does not
cover every aspect of government activities, and sometimes the
notion of ‘power’ helps to analyse a state’s functions, especially
when the state is dealing with national interest or security. Despite
such criticisms, there is little doubt that the communication theory
brought some fresh changes to the study of international relations.

POSTMODERNISM

The origin of postmodernism could be attributed to a group of

French philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault
who challenged the idea of existentialism prevalent in France after
the Second World War. Postmodernism emerged in France in the
early 1950s, although it entered the study of IR in the early 1980s.
It must be made clear at the outset that the term ‘postmodernism’
was never used by its proponents; rather they preferred to use
terms like ‘poststructuralism’ and ‘deconstruction’. However, the
coinage postmodernism became increasingly acceptable
throughout the world since the mid-1970s, possibly due to the
proponents’ attack on what was termed as ‘modernism’ after the
Second World War. Postmodernism entered into the study of IR
through the works of scholars like Richard Ashley, Jenny Adkins,
Cynthia Weber, Rob Walker and David Campbell.

Postmodernist thinkers hold the view that scholars build, and live
in, their own conceptual prisons. The most notable conceptual
prison is that of modernity itself and the idea that modernization
leads to progress and an improved life for humanity.
Postmodernists attack the idea put forward by ‘modern’ thinkers
that there can be objective knowledge of social issues. For the
postmodernists, knowledge is not simply a cognitive factor;
knowledge is also normative and political. According to Foucault,
power and knowledge are mutually supportive, and they directly
imply one another. It is therefore important to see how activities
concerning power fit in with the social and political issues in the
world. Postmodernists are critical of classical liberals like Kant
who believed in ‘knowledge’ or ‘enlightenment’. They are also
critical of contemporary positivists who believe in the objectivity
and superiority of ‘science’. Both liberals and positivists believe in
the advancement of human knowledge which postmodernists find
limited and narrow, akin to a prison.

Like the postmodernists in general, postmodern IR theorists reject

the notion of objective truth. They contradict the idea that there
can be anything like the ‘expanding knowledge’ in our world. These
notions are intellectual illusions that create subjective beliefs, like
a religious faith. The liberals or neo-realists may claim that they
have discovered the real truth about IR, but they actually live in the
world of illusions created by their own intellectual dogmas. By
attacking the modernist belief that knowledge can expand and
improve, leading to continuous progress of the world,
postmodernists have recognized human efforts to control the
society and the world. They also reject the belief that appropriate
institutions can be created to provide just and fair treatment to all
people.

Through ‘deconstruction’, the postmodernists want to look at every

accepted or settled idea with new lenses. Deconstruction is a
process of radically challenging and unsettling accepted concepts,
and providing fresh insights into them. In the field of IR, for
instance, stable theories like liberalism or realism have been
deconstructed by postmodernists like Ashley or Weber to prove
that these theories were not suitable to explain the present
international system. These theories were ‘metanarratives’ or
accounts which claimed to have discovered the truth about the
human world. But such claims are hollow and unfounded. Ashley,
for example, argues that neo-realist claims about the everlasting
anarchical nature of international politics are unfounded because
there are no impartial grounds for judging them. Narratives or
metanarratives are constructed by theorists and they are always
prejudiced by their personal biases. Social science is never
impartial or neutral; it is historical, cultural and political, and
therefore, biased. Ashley believes that the neo-realist knowledge
about everlasting anarchy in the international order is biased
because the neo-realists wanted to establish this ‘fact’ (anarchy) as
an objective truth. This desire to find the objective truth may blind
thinkers and compel them to declare facts of his choice as objective
truths. As Jackson and Sorensen have observed, ‘every theory,
including neorealism, decides for itself what counts as “facts”.
There is no neutral or impartial or independent standpoint to
decide between rival empirical claims. Empirical theory is myth. In
other words, there is no objective reality; everything involving
human beings is subjective’ (2003: 251). According to
postmodernists, there cannot be any stable or grand theory;
everything must come under scrutiny because knowledge is
intimately linked to power, the desire to prevail over others. This
makes knowledge not universal, but susceptible to deconstruction.

Robert Walker, in his book Inside/Outside: International

Relations as Political Theory, attempted to deconstruct the idea of
state sovereignty. Walker’s analysis led to a fresh inquiry into state
sovereignty as a useful descriptive category to explain international
relations today. He suggested that modern political life was not
only organized around sovereign states and sovereign boundaries
of states; it questioned the notion of state sovereignty as the most
accepted subjective category of IR today. New forms of political
community and identity can emerge beyond the notion of
sovereign states, and can become important subjective ideas of
contemporary IR. Walker opposed the idea of accepting the
sovereign state as the pivotal element of the present international
system and unsettled the historic notion of primacy of sovereign
states in IR. William Connolly also provided a postmodern critique
of state sovereignty by challenging the accepted notion that the
sovereign state possessed monopoly over the allegiances,
identifications and energies of its members. State sovereignty,
argued Connolly, was incompatible with democracy in an
international order where globalization was believed to have
broken national boundaries in the period of modernization.
Globalization, state sovereignty and democracy are highly
incompatible in contemporary international relations, believes
Connolly.

These postmodernist views help us to identify some basic features

of what is called ‘postmodern theory’ of IR. These features, along
with the leading postmodern thinkers, are presented in Box 2.12.

An Evaluation of Postmodernism in International Relations

The contributions of postmodernism to the theory of international

relations are many. To begin with, it exposed the intimate
connection between knowledge and power. What we know as
universal knowledge is ultimately the ideas of the powerful in the
society. Knowledge backed by political power normally becomes
‘universal’ knowledge, and acceptable. Postmodernists exposed
this illusion, disguised as knowledge, by indicating that knowledge
is prejudiced. Secondly, through the process of deconstruction, the
postmodernists were able to give fresh insights into liberal notions
of state sovereignty and neo-realist claims about anarchy as the
objective truth in international relations. State sovereignty is not
the most important subject in the study of IR today, as claimed by
the liberals. In the postmodern world, any account of international
politics must also include transnational actors and movements that
work outside and inside state borders. The ideas of democracy and
state sovereignty are not at all compatible, think the
postmodernists. They also burst the bubble created by the neo-
realists about anarchy as an everlasting objective truth in IR. This
view of anarchy is highly subjective, as it is clouded by personal
choices of the neo-realist thinkers. Thirdly, postmodernists
renewed the concept of the ‘political’ in IR by expanding its
applicability beyond territories of the sovereign state. In other
words, the term ‘political’ may also be invoked without referring to
the sovereign state. For instance, there may be a political
 community or identity beyond sovereign states. Postmodernists
broadened the sphere of the political which opened up several
theoretical assumptions in the study of international relations.

Box 2.12: Postmodernism in IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 Postmodernism in IR emerged in the 1980s, although postmodernism as a social theory originated

in the early 1950s in France when a group of scholars questioned existentialism, prevalent in Europe at that
time.
 The term ‘postmodernism’ was never used by any thinker, but became acceptable due to its
critique of modernity.
 Postmodernism challenged the notion that knowledge is eternal and leads to progress of the
world; it also rejected the idea that there can be anything called objective truth.
 According to it, knowledge is intimately linked to power; no knowledge is impartial.
 Postmodernism believes in ‘deconstruction’, a process to challenge and unsettle accepted ideas;
and to give fresh insights into stable ideas.
 It challenged accepted theories in IR, such as liberalism and realism, and held that these theories
were biased by the personal preferences of their protagonists.
 It challenged the neo-realist view that everlasting anarchy in IR is an objective truth. It holds that
this view too is not impartial or neutral as it is prejudiced by the beliefs of neo-realist thinkers.
 It challenged the liberal view that the idea of state sovereignty is an important subjective category
of IR; new forms of political community and identity can emerge beyond the notion of sovereign states.
 Democracy, sovereign state and globalization, as advanced by modernists, are not compatible with
one another, and these are inadequate to analyse contemporary IR.

Leading Theorists: R. Ashley, J. Edkins, C. Weber, R. Walker,

W. Connolly, D. Campbell.

But there are also negative aspects of postmodernism. If every

theory is prejudiced by personal preferences of its thinkers, what
about the postmodern theory? Is it above bias or prejudice? If not,
then why would we accept it? Postmodernism actually raised the
possibility of falling in the trap created by its thinkers. Moreover,
the process of deconstruction is not beyond question.
Deconstruction can be worse than the original construction, and
may generate confusions. The process of deconstruction would be
unending as every new construction would attract deconstruction.
This would simultaneously bring unending confusions in our
analyses. Further, postmodernists in IR rejected narratives and
metanarratives, and accused liberal and neo-realist thinkers of
using metanarratives. Yet their deconstructions of earlier theories
in the discipline were not dissimilar to metanarratives, as they
reached certain conclusions which they also wanted to establish as
‘facts’.

Scholars like Jackson and Sorensen hold the view that

postmodernism can degenerate into nihilism—negativism for its
own sake. They wrote, ‘Criticism can be made merely for the sake
of criticism. Narratives can be taken apart with nothing to take
their place. Ultimately, postmodernists can become estranged from
the social and political world that they seek to understand’ (2003:
252). This over-critical attitude of postmodern theorists subjected
them to scepticism, and made their theory controversial. This
attitude was also labeled by liberals as dogmatic. In their efforts to
reject dogmatism in earlier theories, postmodernists in
international relations were accused of confining themselves to
new dogmas like deconstruction, and challenge to ‘metanarratives’
that ultimately became fetishes for the postmodernists. As a
consequence, their views suffered from inadequacy and imbalance.

CONSTRUCTIVISM

Constructivism is not a new theory in international relations,

although it is often highlighted as a new discourse in the study of
the subject. After the end of the Cold War, constructivism has been
presented in a new light by a group of Western thinkers like
Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, Peter Katzenstein and Friedrich
Kratochwil. But the roots of constructivism could be traced back to
the eighteenth century in the writings of Italian philosopher
Giambattista Vico, who argued that social and world history were
shaped by human beings. States were also created by human
beings, and relations among states did not develop naturally; they
were built by men and women living in states. Contemporary
constructivism argues in the same way, although with more
sophisticated, and sometimes difficult, terminologies.
Constructivism today does not accept the social world as
something ‘given’, as a natural identity. It was created by human
beings with their ideas, concepts and thoughts.

Constructivism therefore believes that our social world is not made

essentially by material forces, external to human ideas and control;
our world is made of human thoughts, beliefs and innovative ideas.
Proponents of this theory contradict the material, scientific
theories of the world, commonly known as the positivist approach
in international relations, and prefer instead an ideational view of
our world. Human relations, including international relations,
have been constructed by men and women, because no natural law
can govern politics and economics of the world; these are governed
through laws devised by human beings. Every material
manifestation in international affairs—cooperation, conflict, allies,
enemies, interests, power—bears meaning given to it by humans.
Nothing in international relations is natural, created without
human agency; everything is a product of conscious construction
by human beings. Social structures, according to Alexander Wendt,
are created through human ideas. There can be different,
sometimes opposing, social structures in IR, but they are all
dependent on human ideas. For instance, a ‘security community’—
for example, the NATO—is a social structure created by men; as
also the ‘security dilemma’ of states, where one country views the
other as its opponent or enemy.

Constructivism focuses on inter-subjective beliefs—such as ideas,

assumptions or views—that are widely shared by people. These
inter-subjective beliefs shape ways in which people build relations
with others and conceive of themselves in society. For instance, the
collective assumption of people of country A that country B is not
friendly towards them may lead to an adverse relationship between
states A and B. Constructivists also try to explore how these
relations are formed and expressed. Constructivists like Finnemore
and Sikkink have referred to state sovereignty as an expression of
inter-subjective belief. According to them, state sovereignty has no
definite material reality, but it exists only because people
collectively believe in its existence, and act accordingly.

Human relations based on inter-subjective beliefs can be both

cooperative and conflicting. There can be agreements or
disagreements among people that may lead to cooperation and
conflict. Constructivism tries to find out the causes behind such
cooperation and conflict. But in its research, the constructivist
approach differs from the positivist ‘scientific’ approach. The
emphasis of constructivism in this case would be more on human
ideas and beliefs, rather than on the so-called ‘material’ causes and
events, normally advanced by positivists. For a constructivist,
 cooperation happens because people want to achieve it. In other
words, a constructivist may see cooperation as agreements or
adjustments of two minds or mindsets. For a positivist, on the
contrary, cooperation may take place due to material advantages,
such as economic benefits. For a constructivist, idea precedes
matter; for the positivist, such as neo-realists, matter precedes
ideas. A neo-realist, therefore, would establish anarchy as the
reality in international politics; a constructivist, on the other hand,
would search the roots of anarchy in human minds.

This discussion on constructivism helps us to identify some

important features and leading protagonists of this theory, as are
presented in Box 2.13.

Box 2.13: Constructivism: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 Originated in the eighteenth century; but often considered as a new theory because it was
presented with renewed vigour after the end of the Cold War by a group of Western scholars.
 Early constructivism believed that our history and social world were created by human ideas and
conceptions.
 Contemporary constructivism revived this argument after the Cold War, and holds the view that
society, the world and human relations are not just natural or physical; they are shaped by human thoughts,
ideas and beliefs.
 Contradicts the positivist ‘scientific material’ view of IR; prefers an ideational view of IR.
 All human relations including international relations are made through conscious human efforts,
because international politics and economics are not governed by natural laws; these are controlled by man-
made laws.
 Every material manifestation in IR bears meaning given to it by human beings.
 According to Wendt, social structures emerge through human ideas.
 Human relations, including international relations, depend on inter-subjective beliefs which
shape different kinds of human relations.
 Cooperation or conflicts in IR are not due to material considerations; these are reflected through
agreements or disagreements of human minds.
 Ideas precede matter in international relations.

Leading Theorists: A. Wendt, N. Onuf, P. Katzenstein, F.

Kratochwil.

An Evaluation of Constructivism in International Relations

The rise of constructivism has inspired many theoretical debates

within the field of international relations. Till the mid-1990s, the
main theoretical debate within the discipline—it is still present—
was between the neo-liberals and the neo-realists. In this debate,
the major issues were cooperation, peace and interdependence
among states, as opposed to conflict among, anarchy in, and
security of the states. With the emergence of constructivism, new
debates arose between rationalists—the group was influenced by
idealist and realist thoughts—and constructivists; and between
critical theorists—influenced by Marxism, liberalism and the
Frankfurt School—and constructivists. The core debates in the
discipline of International Relations today revolve around
normative issues— put forward by constructivists—versus material
forces—highlighted by rationalists and critical theorists;
differences over the nature of social structures, and continuity and
transformation in international politics.

As observed earlier, constructivists put emphasis on ideas as

opposed to matters in the analysis of the international society.
They also differ with others on the emergence and activities of
social structures in international affairs. Examples have been
provided in this respect in our analysis earlier (security community
and security dilemma). The constructivists further believe that it is
possible to make significant transformation in our theoretical and
empirical approaches to the study of international relations. For
instance, important issues in discipline, such as security, state
sovereignty, cooperation or conflict can be studied from a different
perspective, without putting too much importance on physical or
material factors. For example, conflicts between states can be
viewed as ideational conflicts or antagonistic mental constructs of
the ruling elites; and not always due to physical or material factors.
Therefore, constructivism encourages new empirical research and
new orientations in international relations that, they believe, are
different from neo-liberal, neo-Marxist, and neo-realist
approaches. With the rise of constructivism, ideational, normative
issues strike back in the study of international relations.

The emphasis on ideational issues is not beyond question. Are

social structures mainly reflections of ideas? Are major activities
and events in international affairs due to ideas, beliefs and
conceptions of rulers? These questions may generate puzzles that
are not easy to solve. Wendt analysed social structures with
reference to human ideas and thoughts. But material needs may
also propel the ruling elite to form social structures. Was NATO (a
security community) formed due to the convergence of ideas of
ruling elites, or was it formed due to the prevailing security (and,
national) interests of participating states? It is not easy to answer
this question. Did ideas precede security fears in this case; or ideas
generated because of security fears? If the former is correct, then
there would be another related question: is it possible to form
ideas before every event in international politics? The answer
probably would be negative. However, if the later is true with
respect to the formation of the NATO, then material events in
international relations score over human thoughts and beliefs, a
view which the constructivists would like to dislike.

Moreover, pursuing empirical research on the basis of ideas,

thoughts and conceptions, termed as inter-subjective beliefs by the
constructivists, is extremely difficult and prone to errors.
Observation and analysis of these psychological traits are not easy,
and may not be conducive to empirical research. Inter-subjective
beliefs are uncertain because these may change from time to time.
But everything in international relations is not frequently
changeable. Despite criticisms, the nation-states are still major
actors in international politics, as they had been earlier. Now, is
there any possibility that nation-states would give up their
sovereignty in the near future and pave way for an altogether new
discipline of international relations? Are such immediate changes
in ideas and conceptions of nation-states possible? The answer
would probably be negative. Internal contradictions exist in
constructivism. The theory propagates an ideational nature of
international relations based on inter-subjective beliefs. But the
very nature of IR, as relations among nationstates, opposes inter-
subjectivity in every sphere and calls for continuity in its basic
structure— a community of states. Therefore, despite several
positive contributions to the study of international relations,
constructivism falls short of being labelled as a grand theory in the
discipline.

FEMINISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Feminist theories of international relations try to focus on the

hitherto neglected role of women in global affairs. Although as a
social theory feminism is not quite new, feminist theories of IR
have proliferated mainly after the 1980s. It should be mentioned
here that there are many forms of feminist social theory: liberal,
Marxist, radical, postmodern, and others. Similarly, feminism has
many voices within the discipline. For instance, the critical theory
in IR, in its Marxist tradition and postmodernism, has expressions
for feminist causes. While feminism, influenced by Marxism, has
highlighted the exploitation of women in society; postmodern
feminists have focused more on gender, or on how divisions
between the masculine and the feminine constitute a hierarchy of
power by which the former subordinates the latter. However, these
seemingly different lines of thought converge in the general issue
of neglect of women in international affairs, and are broadly
known as the feminist theories of international relations.

These theories have pointed out that the history and structure of,
and knowledge about, IR are all gendered. Some of the major
issues that have traditionally dominated IR studies were relations
among nations, war, peace, security, cooperation, diplomacy,
foreign policy, propaganda and military. According to feminist
theorists of IR, these issues reflect a masculine way of thinking. For
instance, the realist idea of military security of nations in an
international order based on anarchy is a masculine projection that
conceals the existence of gender hierarchy in international politics.
As Christine Sylvester has argued in her book Feminist Theory and
International Relations in a Postmodern Era (1994), this realist
concern for security tries to seek protection from an outside threat,
with a view to ensure protection of a domestic jurisdiction that
fixes continuous subordination of women. Further, feminist IR
theorists argue that although wars have been largely caused and
fought by men, women form the majority of civil casualties.
Besides, women are providers of various support services
(domestic, medical, psychological and sexual) during war and
militarization. As Cynthia Enloe (1989) observed, women
constitute reserve armies in home industries, transnational peace
activists, soldiers as well as mothers of soldiers, and
revolutionaries in national liberation struggles and civil wars.
Enloe added the term ‘international’ to the now-famous radical
feminist slogan ‘personal is political’ to make it ‘personal is
political, and international’ to suggest that international politics
involves personal identities and private lives which remain mostly
unanalysed. Feminist scholars of international relations have also
shown how the formation of the state and the ‘international
society’ of states have helped the construction of gender differences
through divisions such as private/public, state/society and
domestic/international. For instance, the division of private and
public spheres within a state has been created by a patriarchal
mindset which relegated women to household work that remain
largely unnoticed, and unpaid.

Peterson and Runyan have argued in their book Global Gender

Issues (1993) that women are a disadvantaged group in the world
compared to men. According to them, women make up less than
five per cent of heads of state and cabinet ministers; take home
only ten per cent of their income, although they make for about
sixty per cent of all working hours; nearly seventy per cent women
in the world are illiterate; and nearly eighty per cent women are
refugees. This high level of gender inequality has been patterned by
a hierarchy of power in the international society in which men are
superior to women. The authors argued that we live in a gendered
world in which masculinity and the values associated with it—such
as rationality, activity, strength—get more weight and status than
femininity and its values—such as emotionality, passivity,
weakness. They point out that a gender-sensitive analysis of
international politics may bring the issue of gender inequality into
focus and expose how the present international political and
economic systems contribute to the subordinate position of
women.

Globalization has not been able to alter the plight of women; rather
it has enhanced the level of exploitation of femininity. According to
Guy Standing (1992), a process of ‘global feminization’ has
occurred alongside globalization in which many jobs, formerly
dominated by men, have been given to women. But these jobs have
become low-wage, contractual and insecure, with very few social
benefits. Sassen (1991) points out that ‘free trade’ export
processing zones in third world countries are heavily dependent on
women’s labour. Big cities which make important centres for global
financial transactions are also reliant on a class of women workers,
who are often underpaid than their male counterparts. Pettman
(1996) argues that a darker ‘underside’ of globalization can be
 found in the significant growth of ‘sex tourism’, and in trafficking
of women and girls for transnational prostitution. According to
him, many developing economies get valuable foreign exchange
through sex tourism and related ‘activities’ in the age of
globalization.

Feminism in IR proved immensely helpful in focusing on women’s

plight and women’s demands through gender-sensitive research
and theories. These theories not only harp on the exploitation of
women in the family, the state, and in domestic and international
societies; they have material impact on decision-making. Several
countries, for instance, have taken steps to integrate women in
mainstream politics and economics. In several Indian states
(provinces), one-third of the seats have been reserved for women
in institutions of local governance, and a Bill is underway in the
Indian Parliament for reservation of one-third seats in the
Parliament for women. But these measures, although significant,
have only a cosmetic value. Gender inequality can be eradicated
only by altering the patriarchal social structure, and by
empowering women socially and economically, across the world.

Box 2.14: Feminism in IR: Basic Features and Leading Theorists

Basic Features

 Feminism in international relations points out that the history and structure of, and knowledge
about, IR are all gendered.
 Postmodern feminists have focused more on gender, or on how divisions between the masculine
and the feminine constitute a hierarchy of power by which the former subordinates the latter.
 Major issues in IR, such as war, peace, security, power cooperation, diplomacy, foreign policy,
propaganda and military reflected a masculine way of thinking.
 The realist concern for security tries to seek protection from an outside threat with a view to
ensure protection of a domestic jurisdiction that fixes continuous subordination of women.
 Feminist IR theorists argue that although wars have been largely caused and fought by men,
women form the majority of civil casualties.
 Cynthia Enloe rephrased the radical feminist slogan to ‘personal is political, and international’.
 Feminist scholars of international relations have shown how the formation of the state and the
‘international society’ of states have helped the construction of gender differences through divisions such as
private/public, state/society and domestic/international.
 Globalization has not been able to alter the plight of women.
 Gender-sensitive analysis of international politics may bring the issue of gender inequality into
focus.
 Leading Theorists: C. Enloe, C. Sylvester, V. S. Peterson, A. S.
Runyan, G. Standing, S. Sassen, J. Pettman, J. True.

This helps us to identify the distinguishing features of feminism in

international relations and its leading advocates, which are
presented in Box 2.14.

Conclusion

Proponents of feminism in international relations not only

encourage gender-sensitive research and analysis, they also seek to
move beyond fixed gendered ideas of the human society. Some
theorists searched for emancipatory paradigms within the human
society, and tried to provide alternative models of human relations.
J. A. Tickner (1997), for example, noted that a feminist perspective
could make international relations richer by providing alternative
models which may redefine the ideas of production and
reproduction, rationality, and human relationship. Such models,
believes Tickner, would help in building our conceptions about
individuals, states and the international society in a better way.
They may help to view individuals and states as independent, yet
connected, with multiple identities and relations. Individuals and
states, if viewed as having autonomous spheres of activities, would
not be engaged in a relationship based on hierarchy of power. Yet
they must be connected for developing a better way of living.
Individuals and states must have multiple relations, beyond any
fixed gendered relationship of domination of masculinity.
Therefore, feminist perspectives of international relations may
help the discipline to search for new ideas, conceptions and
theories.

QUESTIONS

1. Why is a theory required? Write a note on the important theories in International Relations.
2. Make a critical analysis of the Liberal theory in International Relations.
3. Examine the Pluralist theory in International Relations.
4. Examine Morganthau’s six principles of political realism.
5. Make a critical estimate of the Realist theory in International Relations.
6. Analyse the Marxist theory of International Relations.
7. Critically discuss the World System theory in International Relations.
8. Point out the significance of the Game theory in International Relations.
9. Analyse the Decision-making theory in International Relations.
10. Make a critical assessment of the Systems theory in International Relations.
11. Write a critical note on the Communication theory in International Relations.
12. Analyse the significance of postmodernism in International Relations.
13. Examine the theory of constructivism in International Relations.
14. Bring out the importance of the theory of feminism in International Relations.

3
Basic Concepts

STATE AS AN ACTOR IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The concept of ‘state’ is very important in the study of

International Relations (IR). The subject of IR, in the traditional
view, deals with the interaction among independent sovereign
states. As the most important political institution in the society, the
concept of the state has always attracted the attention of scholars;
from ancient times to the present day. It has often been analysed
by scholars from different—albeit sometimes contradictory—
perspectives. But its basic identities remained largely unaltered. A
state is a definite geographical territory comprising people who are
politically organized and pay obedience to its authority. The
modern idea of the nation-state is believed to be the product of the
Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which organized different political
units in Europe on the basis of language. These units gradually
came to be known as nation-states. The modern state, like earlier
states, has some basic components: territory, people, government,
and sovereignty. But it has something more: (1) legal continuity of
the national society; (2) institutionalized agencies and social
changes; (3) law-enforcing agencies; (4) defence against external
attack or internal insurgencies; and (5) economic sustenance to its
population. The state exercises sovereignty exclusively over its
territory and its people, and is recognized by all other states in the
international domain. Even today, in the face of expanding
globalization, the state remains the primary and conventional
political unit that plays a key role in international affairs.

The international system is a structured pattern of behaviour

among different states in accordance with certain rules and
mechanisms of interaction. The extent of influence in the
international political sphere varies from one state to another. The
most powerful nation would exert enormous influence in any
particular international issue and try to manoeuvre the situation in
its favour. In actuality, few states in the world possess a strong
economy, a powerful military, sufficient territory, and adequate
industrial and technological infrastructure, by means of which they
can exert considerable influence beyond their territorial borders.
Those who do are referred to as Great Powers. Historically, these
powers have shaped the international order through economic and
political power, through alliances, colonial hegemonies, wars,
religious aggressiveness, and such other methods, in order to
perpetuate their influence.

Before the Second World War, some European states—Britain,

France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Portugal—were considered as
great powers as they largely shaped international politics. But the
war hit them hard and their powers were reduced. Instead, two
other nations—the United States of America (US) and the Soviet
Union—emerged as the two superpowers after the war, and began
to exert their influence in international politics and shape the
world according to their calculations. Due to their ideological and
political rivalries, the world got distinctly divided into two warring
camps. Scholars described this situation as the Cold War.
However, the collapse of the Soviet Union marked its end. In the
post-Cold War period, the US remained the only superpower with
sufficient economic and military strength. It is now trying to be the
prime controlling power in international politics. Historically
speaking, states dominating the sphere of international relations
have always remained the great powers of the world. At present,
the world economy is dominated by a few rich states whose GDP
(Gross Domestic Product) are substantially high, compared to
other states. The US, Japan, France, Britain, China, Germany and
Russia estimate for about half of the world’s GDP. The
concentration of economic power, along with subsequent political
clout, in the hands of these few states has resulted in their
superiority in world politics today. They have become important
actors in world politics, influencing and dominating IR. Besides
the great powers, there are other states—medium and small powers
—which often play significant roles in world politics. The smooth
functioning of the international system largely relies on the
interdependence and interplay of all these states. Despite several
challenges to the state, such as scientific and technological
development, information revolution, globalization, expanding
arms market, increasing significance of multinational companies,
and non-government organizations, the state has been able to
maintain its position as the key actor in contemporary
international politics.

NON-STATE ACTORS

Traditional thinkers considered the state as the most important

actor in international relations; but global issues today are no
longer confined only to state-based politics, war or diplomacy. A
wide range of issues—relating to trade and business,
communication system, ethnicity, environmental pollution, human
rights, or religion—are also covered by the discipline now. Besides
the state, the stage of international relations is now occupied also
by a group of non-conventional players, popularly known as the
non-state actors; they have made their presence felt in various
spheres of world politics. They often influence the course of
international affairs, manipulate multilateral decisions and, in
some extreme cases, can even supersede the states’ policies and
programmes. Interdependence among states across the world has
made these non-state actors quite active and significant in
international affairs. For convenient understanding, non-state
actors may be classified into three main groups: (1) multinational
corporations; (2) inter-governmental organizations; and (3)
international non-governmental organizations.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs)

A multinational corporation is a business organization rooted in a

particular country with offices and factories in several other states
serving the business interest of the organization. MNCs set up
offices and factories in host countries (countries where they are
operating) to expand their business; to earn profits through
minimizing production and transportation costs; and to regulate
the global flow of capital, goods and labour. The annual incomes of
some of the giant MNCs exceed those of many small states. With
enormous economic clout, the MNCs have the ability to influence
and alter the course of domestic and international politics, and
have thus become very significant actors today. For more on
MNCs, and their impact on international political economy,
see Chapter 10.
 Inter-governmental Organizations

Inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) are very large groupings

of different national governments. The United Nations (UN)
system is one of the most prominent examples of an IGO. Apart
from it, some other important IGOs are the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the
Commonwealth of Nations, the European Union (EU), the
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the
Organization of Oil and Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC),
the Arab League, and the African Union (AU). The activities of
such organizations differ according to their respective goals. Some
are global (like the UN, WTO, NAM, Commonwealth of Nations)
while others are regional (like the EU, ASEAN, AU) or functional
(like the OPEC) in nature.

By far UN is the most important IGO in today’s world. It comprises

almost all the countries of the world. Since all its members are
sovereign states, the UN cannot enforce its decisions upon a
member-state without the latter’s consent. But that does not
minimize its role as the principal organization on the international
platform working towards maintaining peace and security in the
world. The UN was created to avoid the horror called war and
sustain global peace—while avoiding the use of force in its efforts—
and to serve the needs of member-states. It works as a forum for
socio-economic development of its members, as well as a conflict
resolution mechanism for them. It endeavours to promote global
peace through international cooperation. Apart from its peace
initiatives, the UN is also concerned with various other issues like
the welfare of women and children, environment, health, food and
agriculture, education, and human rights. It is also involved in
disaster management programmes, housing problems, and
population control programmes. Despite its functional weaknesses,
the UN has been playing a major role in maintaining international
peace and security since its formation, and has proved to be a very
significant IGO of the times.

The significance of some other IGOs like the WTO, NAM, EU,
ASEAN, AU, and the Commonwealth of Nations, has been detailed
in different chapters of this book. Without being repetitive,
reference may be made to another important IGO with strong
economic and political influence in the contemporary world—the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). With its
secretariat in Vienna, Austria, it is an association of major oil-
producing countries of the world. Its member-states, currently
eleven, produce nearly 80 per cent of the total crude oil in the
world, and control more than half of the world’s oil exports.
Considering the importance of oil in today’s civilization, one may
easily realize the significance of this organization in contemporary
international economy and politics. The OPEC started exerting its
influence in international politics in the early 1970s, when it
decided to stop supply of oil to countries that supported Israel in
the Arab-Israel conflict of 1973. Since then, it has remained
engaged in a much successful ‘oil diplomacy’, with a view to
influence global politics.

International Non-governmental Organizations

Among the non-state actors, international non-governmental

organizations (INGOs) are slowly assuming prominence in
international affairs. They are mainly non-profit-oriented
organizations, private in nature, with roots in a particular country,
but not connected with any national government. Although their
resources are much less as compared to national governments,
INGOs interact with social institutions, MNCs, local governments,
and also states, to reach their goals. They have distinct interests
which they try to promote. As they extend their area of action
beyond their national frontiers, they behave like global pressure
groups. These organizations have specialized functions as most of
them work on specific agenda like environment, human rights,
disaster management, child labour, women’s rights, malnutrition,
ozone layer depletion, etc. These issues have assumed global
relevance now, and involve and affect people across the world. In
order to increase global awareness, INGOs operate across state
borders and involve as many people as possible. Greenpeace is one
such INGO working towards safeguard of global environment.
Amnesty International, formed in 1961, is another well-known
INGO engaged in activities for the protection of human rights. At
present, it has a large network comprising over one million
members spread across 160 countries. However, these
organizations do not always enjoy the cooperation of the nation-
states, and often find it difficult to pursue their goals.
Extensive industrialization and urbanization after the Second
World War, and its effect on the environment and on human life,
has led to proliferation of INGOs particularly during this period.
Dealing mostly with humanitarian and environmental issues, big
INGOs attract attention worldwide. These organizations
sometimes act as campaigners, striving to seek the attention of the
decision-makers with a view to influence government policies. In
other cases, they may try to influence international politics by
working in sensitive areas like environmental degradation, health,
child labour, or human trafficking. The International Committee of
the Red Cross has got worldwide recognition for its commendable
work in the areas of health and human welfare. Some non-state
actors like different religious groups had always influenced world
politics to some extent. The Church of Rome, popularly known as
the Vatican or the Holy See, with the Pope as its religious head, is
seen as an influential religious actor in world politics. Although
Vatican has been traditionally recognized as a sovereign state, the
Pope is revered more as a religious head of the Catholics the world
over. His frequent opposition to birth control policies stirred up a
hornet’s nest in world politics in recent times. Like the Pope, the
Imams of large and influential mosques in different countries also
play important roles in domestic and international politics.
Religious organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the
Muslim League, and religious leaders like the Dalai Lama, with
their large number of followers, can influence policy-making both
at the domestic front and in foreign countries, thus having a great
impact on international relations. But no typical pattern can be
attributed to the manner of influence exercised by religious non-
state actors, as their ways of exerting influence vary according to
time, place and conditions.

Apart from the recognized and accepted religious non-state actors

like the Roman Church, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Imams or
the Dalai Lama, several fundamentalist groups thriving on
religious sentiments have proliferated in recent times. These
fundamentalist groups often resort to terrorist activities in the
name of religion so as to draw attention of the people and the
policy-makers. Some of them maintain an incredibly vast global
network, and even go to the extent of challenging the authority of
the state. Attacks by the terrorist group Al Qaeda on American
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and its assault on the World
Trade Center in September 2001, clearly show the wide range
within which such networks operate. These attacks largely affected
international politics. The state sometimes appears to be very
helpless in the face of such terrorist attacks carried out by the
fundamentalist groups. Fundamentalist and terrorist organizations
are, therefore, also considered to be important non-state actors
today, due to their impact—although negative—on international
politics.

A study of international relations would remain incomplete

without any reference to the state and non-state actors, because of
their impact on international politics. Although the state remains
the principal actor in international relations till this day, the role of
non-state actors like the IGOs, the MNCs and the INGOs have also
become very much significant in recent times. They often influence
and manipulate the domestic and international policies of a state.
International relations thrive on a successful interplay between
state and non-state actors.

NATIONAL POWER

Power is an essential element in politics. It is often defined as the

ability of its holder to extract compliance from others, and to make
others behave according to the wishes of the holder. In the study of
international relations, the term ‘power’ usually refers to national
power—the power a state possesses to obtain compliance from
other states. The power a state or nation possesses is dependent on
a host of factors like the national economy, natural resources,
military capabilities, level of industrial growth, leadership, and
popular support for its government. A state may use its power to
promote and protect its vital interests in international politics, to
save its population from external aggression, and to cooperate with
other nations. But at times a nation may also misuse its power by
trying to enforce its decisions upon others. The extent of its ability
to use or misuse power depends upon the actual power of the state.
By the study of National Power, it is somewhat possible to know
the power of a state, and its relative position, in terms of power, in
international politics. National power varies in degree and nature
from one state to the other.
 Elements of National Power

The national power of a state is the product of a number of

elements. These are: (1) geography; (2) population; (3) natural
resources; (4) popular support; (5) national character; (6)
technology and military strength; (7) ideology; and (8) leadership.
These elements are dependent on one another, and their combined
positive contributions can make a nation powerful. All the
elements of national power are not measurable or quantifiable.
Elements like geography, natural resources, population, and to
some extent economy, are somewhat measurable. Elements like
leadership, ideology or morale are intangible and difficult to
measure, but they too contribute to the formation of national
power to a large extent. All the elements, and not any one, should
contribute positively for the development of a strong and
significant national power. The different elements of national
power are discussed below.
Geography

The territorial limit of a state indicates its geography. Geographic

factors include location, size, topography, climate, boundaries, and
physical features of a state. Location is an important factor related
to geography. Since times immemorial, India has been guarded by
the Great Himalayas in the north and surrounded by sea or ocean
on the three other sides. It could thus enjoy some sort of protection
and avoid frequent foreign invasion. The location of a state can
also make it a land power or a sea power, as well as contribute to
its strategic importance. Location also helps in the spatial
relationship of a state to other land bodies in and around it. The
size of a state may also determine its power. Historically, very
small states could not become great powers. Conversely, only
having a big territory cannot make a state powerful. Argentina,
Brazil and Kazakhstan are all big in size, but they are not big
powers. However, a state must have a considerably big territory to
aspire towards a ‘big power’ label.

The climate of a state directly affects its agriculture, economy and

population. Excessively hot or cold climates are never conducive to
human survival. Such climatic conditions are also unfavourable for
productivity and agricultural growth. Regions with cool and
temperate climate and sufficient rainfall are best suited for
increasing productive capacity and for prosperity. The US, Japan,
China, and a few west European countries located in the cool
temperate type of climate have emerged as big powers in the world
today. In general, the rhythm of life in a particular country is
largely regulated by the climatic factor. The physical shape of a
state also determines its administrative efficiency, vulnerability to
foreign attack, military power, and also its trade and commerce. A
compact state like Spain, with a well-defined boundary and a
centrally located capital, enjoy better strategic and administrative
efficiency than an elongated state like Chile, situated in the western
coast of South America. Geographical factors like location, climate
and shape are considered important in realizing differences
between the rich industrialized countries of the North and the
relatively poor countries of the South in the world today.
Population

The number of people inhabiting a state can be a boon or an

obstacle for the development of a state. The trends in population
growth, the sex ratio, the percentage of working people, and the
literacy rate are some of the factors that can contribute to national
power. A sizeable population proportionate to a country’s
resources is ideal for the power of a state, while a disproportionate
population is normally considered an impediment. However, such
a population can, at times, also prove to be a source of strength.
Sustained economic growth in China over the last three decades
has proved that a large population can be effectively turned into
human resource. But China has enforced strict birth control
policies to curb its growing population. It is not always easy for
every country to manage a very large population. A country with a
sizeable population like the US, England, Russia, or Japan can
manage its people more efficiently than countries with large
populations like India or Indonesia. An ageing population is also
not conducive to national power. Conversely, a population with
more persons in the working age (fifteen to fifty-five years) may
contribute towards enhancing national power. The rate of literacy,
industrial skills, and technological know-how of a population may
also indicate the power of a state. The US, Japan, and west
European countries with high rates of literacy and industrially
skilled people are ahead in terms of national power than the
countries of the South with low rates of literacy and industrial
skills.

An adverse sex ratio in population is an impediment for socio-

economic growth, and affects national power. A country with a
disproportionate male-female ratio in its population is more prone
to crime and social unrest. Another factor affecting the growth of a
nation is the status of women in the society. In a society where
women are seen—vis-à-vis men—as mere progenitors and not as
equal partners in, or contributors to, socio-economic growth, it is
difficult to strive towards development. In order to limit the size of
a family and to achieve prosperity, it is necessary to educate
women and give them all the rights required for the betterment of
her family and the society at large. The inferior social status of
women in less developed countries is closely associated with their
economic backwardness.
Natural Resources

Natural resources not only include flora and fauna, but also
minerals, cultivable soil for agricultural products, and resources
from the sea. They are not evenly distributed throughout the
world; some states abound in them, while others suffer from
scarcity. Of the various natural resources, fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas)
are perhaps more important in today’s world. Fossil fuels presently
constitute about 95 per cent of global energy consumption.
Countries rich in these fuels have an edge over others in terms of
national power. They earn valuable foreign exchange by exporting
these minerals, particularly oil, to other countries deficient in
them. Oil is also used to get political mileage. The OPEC’s ‘oil
diplomacy’ is a case in point, which remained much effective in
international politics since the early 1970s.

Mineral resources are also important, but they are not the essential
preconditions for a state’s industrialization and for its overall
economic development. Japan and England are not very rich in
minerals, yet they are highly industrialized and developed nations
because other elements of national power are available in plenty in
these countries. But it becomes easier for a country with abundant
mineral resources to become a great power than a country with
little mineral resources. The United States and the Soviet Union,
which emerged as two superpowers after the Second World War,
had plenty of mineral and other natural resources to support their
industry and military. Self-sufficiency in oil and other natural
resources helped the US to remain a superpower, and Russia to
aspire for a ‘big power’ status, after the Cold War. The US is self-
sufficient in crude oil, copper, aluminium, coal, iron ore, zinc and
gypsum, while Russia is still a key exporter of minerals like coal,
iron ore, manganese, and copper. China has abundant mineral
resources to support its growing economy and industrial
infrastructure, and its big-power aspirations.

Certain agricultural products are peculiar to some typical climatic

and soil conditions. Rubber, sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa and jute are
produced only in a few countries across the world, although they
are used by almost all the countries. But the producing states have
not been able to manipulate and raise market prices as the
products are less essential than crude oil or coal. Enough supplies
of food grains are important for a nation to be powerful. While the
US, Russia, France and other Western countries are self-reliant for
food grains, most of the third world countries are not. Food is a
major problem in almost all the developing states. They spend a
considerable portion of their meagre foreign exchange on
importing essential food grains like rice, wheat, corns, and
vegetables. This consequently weakens their economy, and
therefore their national power. On the other hand, self-sufficiency
in food has helped India to achieve economic growth and to add to
its national power.

Mere presence of large reserves of natural resources alone cannot

make a state powerful. For that, it is necessary to utilize them
properly to meet the requirements of industrialization, export, and
the people of the state. Along with these, positive contributions of
other elements of national power are also required for a nation to
become sufficiently powerful in international politics.
Popular Support

Popular support is an intangible element of national power. A

nation with a popularly elected government is likely to exercise
greater power both at national and international levels. Its policies
and programmes are mostly backed by people’s support and hence
their implementation becomes easier. But in case of authoritarian
governments, policies and programmes are often forced upon the
people without their consent. Today, almost all the powerful states
in the world are largely based on popular support expressed by
their democratic forms of governments. More and more countries
like the former socialist states of east Europe, and several nations
in Asia, Africa and Latin America are taking the route to
democracy. Even China has shed its earlier rigid authoritarianism
to allow public opinion to be expressed in matters of government
and politics. It is seldom doubted that a government enjoying
popular support can pursue its interests and exercise its power
more effectively than one with little legitimacy among its people.
Popular support may sustain a government or reject it. The quality
of leadership, the nature of the government, and the contemporary
situation may ultimately determine the kind of popular support a
state enjoys. The support of the people cannot be something
constant. Like tides and ebbs, popular support is subject to
fluctuations, even if not at regular intervals.
National Character

The national character of a state is the product of various factors

like its history, culture, religion, politics, economy, and even
propaganda. The character of the people of a nation is not built in a
day. It takes ages to develop it. Different nations have developed
their spirits of loyalty, courage, faith and respect with regard to
their individual political systems, which can never be stereotyped.
The concept of national character is perhaps best explained when
we say that the Japanese are technologically highly developed, or
that the Germans are disciplined people, or that the Americans are
respectful to democratic values, or that the Somali people are less
manageable. It is a state of mind and spirit which defies any
organized analytical study. National character has a bearing on
national power to a great extent. The character of the people of a
state may determine its power ambitions. A state with less
determination to succeed may not achieve sufficient national
power. A state may be homogenous or heterogeneous; it may have
religious diversities or not; it may be racially united or multiracial;
but every nation has its unique national character which is
reflected through an underlying current of loyal, bold, and faithful
spirit of love for the country. National character ultimately
generates devotion towards one’s country. It is also expressed in
the form of support towards the national government.
Technology and Military Strength

Advances in technology in the last few centuries have profoundly

changed the global society. Technological innovations in the field
of transport and communication, information systems, production
facilities, agriculture, industries, medicine, finance and weapons
have brought about significant changes in the world. Man’s quest
for knowledge has resulted in remarkable technological
advancement. It has largely contributed towards increasing a
state’s power. A technologically advanced state is today regarded as
a powerful state. It is possible for a country with sufficient
technological base to have advanced industries, better transport
facilities, and a strong military with the latest weapons.
Technological advancement has always contributed towards
reinforcing the military strength of states. Countries that could
acquire the latest technologies were able to build a strong military.
They were always ahead in the race for national power, because a
strong military is always very effective for power ambitions. Today,
information technology is considered as a new-generation
technology, and countries that are advanced in information
technology have an edge over others in terms of national power.
Technology changes with time. Countries that can acquire new
technologies fast, remain ahead in the race for power in
international politics.
Ideology

Ideology is a set of beliefs about the society, its people, and the
political system, including the government. Ideologies have a great
influence on the public psyche. They are consciously advocated by
various machineries of the society like political parties,
governments, interest groups, and nongovernmental
organizations. People may subscribe to various ideological beliefs
like totalitarianism, communism, capitalism, liberalism, anti-
colonialism, democracy, and even nazism or fascism. The
importance of ideology in international politics could be
ascertained from the fact that ideological differences between a
‘liberal democratic’ United States of America and a ‘communist’
Soviet Union resulted in a struggle for power and supremacy in the
world, known as the Cold War, for four and a half decades.
Ideology, if it becomes a fad, may create problems for states. A
rigid commitment to any ideology can lead states to war. Ideology
is further linked to national power because without the backing of
national power, an ideology remains a passive and non-productive
pattern of ideas in international relations.
Leadership

Another important element of national power is leadership. A well

developed society with an integrated technology and a high morale
can be possible only when there are leaders of great ability.
Leaders not only instill values and beliefs among people, but can
also guide the state towards prosperity and growth, which
ultimately enhances national power. The decision-making process
in every state is influenced by its leaders’ personality traits, values
and beliefs. On the one hand, an ambitious leader of an ambitious
state may try to achieve national power through coercive means
and eventually lead the world to a war. In recent history, Hitler’s
leadership is a prominent example. On the other hand, the leaders
of a state can be innovative and form new ideas to change a
political system or to sustain it, thus leading to the country’s
prosperity or decline. China’s communist leaders built the concept
of a ‘socialist market economy’ to put China on the road to
economic prosperity, and to sustain communist rule with renewed
public support. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev
introduced the policies of ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ to revive the
Soviet society and economy; and these policies were instrumental
for the end of the Cold War. The element of leadership is thus
crucial to the power a state enjoys both in domestic and
international politics.

National power is essentially a relative concept. It needs to be

analysed in terms of powers of other states. Since the various
important elements of national power are subject to change, the
concept itself is not constant. A state may rise or fall from time to
time in terms of power. Power relations between states may change
due to wars, natural calamities, scarcity of resources, technological
innovations, economic progress, and changes in leadership,
military strength, and alliances. Such changes affect the rise or fall
in power of a state.
 BALANCE OF POWER

In international politics, nations compete with one another for

supremacy. Their struggle for power may be overt or covert. Some
scholars maintain that international society is anarchic in nature.
From times immemorial, independent states waged wars for
promoting their respective national interests. They applied direct
or indirect methods for gaining control over other states. Such
methods include application of force or use of military strength,
diplomacy, economic assistance, alliances, and negotiations.
Whether a state is large or small in terms of power is largely
determined by its military power. States are the only bodies to own
and use military power. But waging a perpetual war is not possible
—even for the strongest state on earth—nor is it desirable. The
objective of establishing peace, however, also requires the backing
of power. All states want to achieve national power to fulfill their
objectives in international politics. The improvement of its power
position, both externally and internally, becomes the dominant
objective of a state. The system of balance of power becomes
important here. Balance of power is a system where five or six
nations, more or less equal in terms of power, control world
politics, and maintain— knowingly or unknowingly—a kind of a
balance in world politics.

The concept of balance of power originated with the emergence of

the nation-state system in 1648, after the Treaty of Westphalia was
signed. Its principles were most fully applied in eighteenth and
nineteenth century Europe. The balance of power system remained
very active during this period. Since early nineteenth century,
Europe occupied the centre of power politics. Five major powers—
Britain, France, Prussia, the Austro-Hungarian state, and Russia—
maintained a complex balance.

The term ‘balance of power’ has different meanings. So it becomes

rather difficult to define the term. Scholars have attempted to
define balance of power in different ways. According to George
Schwarzenberger, such a balance produces a relatively peaceful
and stable international system. Here states join or leave alliances
so that a stable pattern of behaviour is preserved. Balance of power
is only a particular manifestation of a general social principle,
according to Hans J. Morgenthau. He has identified four usages of
the term balance of power. These are: (1) a policy aimed at a
certain state of affairs; (2) the actual state of affairs; (3) an
approximately equal distribution of power; and (4) any
distribution of power among states including a dominance of
power by one over the other. Sidney B. Fay provides the most
cogent definition of the term when he describes balance of power
as ‘a just equilibrium in power among the members of the family of
nations as will prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently
strong to enforce its will upon the others’. This system operates in
what may be called in a ‘negative way’ in world politics. Here the
states are more interested in curbing the powers of other states
rather than limiting their own strengths. They are keen on
ensuring a balance of power in their favour by trying to limit the
powers of other states. This makes the system rather peculiar and
unique in international politics. An analysis of the features of this
system follows.

Characteristics of Balance of Power

The balance of power system has several characteristics. To start

with, it may either be simple or complex. If two states are
possessing more or less equal military power, they would not wage
war against each other, realizing that a war would result in nothing
but a great loss of resources and human life. There would then be,
in all probability, no war. This is an example of simple balance of
power or a see-saw model of balance of power. The situation is
different when more than two powerful states are involved. States
want power for themselves; at the same time they have the fear of
being dominated by other states. This sense of uncertainty forces
the states to form alliances which are shifting in nature. There can
never be any constant greater power or smaller power. Different
powers in the system alter their relative power positions in relation
to their economic growth. As a result, there is always a shifting
pattern of alliances which maintains a kind of a balance of power.
Thus, the balance of power system is not permanent; rather it is
temporary and short-lived.

The balance of power is not a gift of any unknown entity. States

cannot wait for it to happen. They endeavour to achieve balance
through different means. They may form alliances to
counterbalance the power of another group of states. For the sake
of their own survival, the states may have to go to war or enter into
diplomatic negotiations. Such activities may lead to a balance of
power system. In order to be effective, this system has to be
changing and dynamic. Otherwise, it would appear to be
meaningless in a constantly changing world order.

The system of balance of power cannot be regarded as an

instrument for preserving world peace. It aims at maintaining the
sovereignty of nation-states; it does not necessarily maintain world
peace. It had been observed in the past that an alliance waged war
against another alliance of states fearing that the existing
equilibrium might be disturbed. Moreover, it becomes difficult for
a nation to assess whether a balance of power has been achieved at
all. Until there is no aggression on the part of a nation-state, it
could be presumed that a balance of power prevails. Therefore, the
real test of the system is believed to be in the time of war. This
system is primarily a game for the big powers, and the small states
are mere spectators.

Balance of power system is neither suitable for democracy nor for

dictatorship. Democracy is based on consensus. Public opinion in a
democracy may not favour pursue of power. Further, democracy
aims at social welfare, development, and peaceful coexistence
among nations. It may not want to play a game where a war could
happen at any time. On the other hand, dictators always wants to
see their states over and above others. They want to pursue power,
but would not like to compromise on the question of sharing power
with others. They would not tolerate any rival in the game of
power. They would not like to see any ‘friend’ gaining equality in
terms of power; and are ready to make such a ‘friend’ a rival by
wishing to demolish them in war. In other words, a dictator does
not want the existence of a more or less equal partner. Some critics
point out that the balance of power system is no longer operative in
the world today. After the Second World War, international politics
revolved round a ‘bipolar system’ where the two superpowers, the
US and the Soviet Union, controlled world politics. Under such
conditions, the principle of balance of power failed to function
along its classical line that favoured the existence of five or six
more or less equal powers, and their interactions in world politics.
It is believed that this system ended with the Second World War
after existing for nearly three centuries. But it must be noted here
that it may stage a comeback in future, if the world witnesses the
emergence of five or six ‘equal’ powers with their endeavours to
control international politics.

Methods of Balance of Power

Hans J. Morgenthau identified some methods of balance of power

which made the system active and operative. The application of
these methods depended on several factors like the political
situation, distribution of power among states, and threat from
other states. Balance could be attained either by making another
state less powerful or by enhancing the power of one’s own state.
There are mainly four methods balancing power, as identified by
Morgenthau: (1) divide and rule; (2) compensations; (3) alliances;
and (4) armaments.
Divide and Rule

Since ancient times, ‘divide and rule’ has been a method used
frequently to weaken the opposition. It is an age-old policy—
initially adopted by individual rulers, and later by nation-states—of
making their competitors weak by dividing them territorially,
ideologically, or politically. The most classical example of this
divide and rule policy used as a method for achieving balance of
power is the one adopted by France. Since the early seventeenth
century till the Second World War, France favoured either the
division of Germany into a number of small independent states or
preventing the creation of a unified Germany. France was
apprehensive that a strong and unified state of Germany might
cause a threat to France in world politics. History tells that France
had always opposed the birth of a unified Germany. Morgenthau
also cites the example of the former Soviet Union preventing the
creation of a unified Europe, since the 1920s to the end of the
Second World War. The Soviet Union feared that the concept of a
unified Europe might strengthen the West Bloc and upset Soviet
power. So, it always encouraged the ideological division of Europe
into an ‘east’ and a ‘west’ bloc. This policy helped the Soviet Union
retain its supremacy in world politics for a ling time.
Compensations
Since early eighteenth century, compensation was applied as a
crude device to maintain balance of power. It was entirely
territorial in nature. The working of the principle of compensation
was clearly evident when Austria, Prussia, and Russia mutually
settled among themselves territorial acquisition of Poland, which
helped to maintain power equilibrium in central Europe.
Morgenthau noted that the Treaty of Utrecht, signed in 1713 to end
the War of the Spanish Succession, recognized compensation for
the first time as a method of maintaining a balance of power in
Europe. The treaty provided for the division of the Spanish
occupations, in Europe and other parts of the world, between the
Hapsburg and the Bourbon monarchies. This principle of
compensation was used in Africa by the major colonial powers.
Numerous treaties were signed by these European powers to
delimit their spheres of influence and to establish their domination
over the colonial territories for the purpose of maintaining balance
of power.
Armaments

States trying to maximize power always procured arms to gain an

advantage over others. But procuring or manufacturing of arms
required the existence of strong economic conditions. Historically,
very few states could afford to procure enough armaments to deter
competitors. Five or six great powers always remained ahead in the
arms race in their quest for supremacy. Armaments provided for a
precarious balance of power system, where five or six states wanted
to procure more arms either to outsmart their rivals or to maintain
parity with them. It was a situation where nation A tried to obtain
more arms to outdo nation B, or to keep pace with nation B, and
also with nations C, D, and E. These nations (B, C, D, and E) would
do the same either to outsmart others in the race for armaments,
or keep parity with them. A balance of power, although precarious,
would thus be maintained. It is true that initiatives for
disarmament existed alongside the race for arms, but these efforts
failed to meet the desired levels of success due to the quest of
different states for more power. Armaments provided for a balance
of power in a negative way.
Alliances
Formation of alliances to add to the strength of states, or to deter
or weaken the opposition, had been a potent method of
maintaining a balance of power in international politics. History
provides many instances where several states entered into alliances
to prevent the rise of a powerful state. Initially, most alliances were
formed in response to a perceived threat; hence they were
defensive in their orientation. By forming alliances, states could
add to their power capabilities, and could also exert greater
influence when bargaining with others.

Alliances may be of short-term interests; they may be issue-based;

they may also survive for longer periods if formed for strategic
purposes or based on commonality of interests. Alliances are not
permanent in character. As the states are independent and
sovereign, they can make or break alliances whenever necessary.
Alliances are actually arrangements made for convenience. They
are mainly formed to prevent any state or a group of states from
becoming sufficiently powerful in international politics, and thus
play a significant role in maintaining balance of power. The
temporary nature of alliances actually helps the balance of power
system to remain operative. Most alliances are formed on the basis
of converging interests, threat from common adversaries, or
similar ideological orientations. When national interests converge
in alliances, they tend to be a little more cohesive and organized.
But generally, most alliances within the balance of power system
are fragile in nature because they are based on political
calculations of participating nations.

A study of the balance of power system reveals that as a system it is

temporary and fragile, like some of its methods, which in fact
contribute to its ephemeral character. Although the system existed
for almost three centuries, from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-
twentieth century, it could be destroyed any moment. However,
three hundred years do not make a very long period in the history
of statecraft. As mentioned earlier, the balance of power system
collapsed after the Second World War. It requires favourable
conditions to remain operative. The post-Second World War
conditions were not conducive for the system to remain active.
However, the system may emerge again if all the conditions for the
maintenance of balance of power become favourable.
 BALANCE OF TERROR

The term ‘balance of terror’ is used to refer to the arms race, both
conventional and nuclear, between the United States and the
Soviet Union after the Second World War. Both the superpowers
were engaged in a frightening arms race, each trying to terrorize
the other and its followers during their intense rivalry, popularly
known as the Cold War. But a precarious peaceful relation existed
between the two countries, and between the two camps led by
them. Both avoided a direct confrontation because both were
afraid of a nuclear war and its projected devastation. But they went
on stockpiling weapons of mass destruction to deter the other
nation from launching an attack, and also to terrorize the other
nation. This situation was described as a ‘balance of terror’. It was
believed by many scholars and statesmen that the balance of terror
had replaced the balance of power after the Second World War.

The manufacture and stockpiling of nuclear weapons by the two

superpowers after the Second World War created a new reality in
international politics. The whole world gradually realized that the
use of nuclear weapons in any war could destroy the entire human
civilization. The two superpowers realized that any possible war
between them would be a nuclear war, and in that war, there would
only be losers, and no actual winner, because the devastations after
a nuclear war would severely affect both the countries and their
achievements. So, each restrained itself from attacking the other,
although weapons of mass destruction continued to be
manufactured and stockpiled by each of them to instill a sense of
fear in the minds of the other nation and its followers. A kind of a
balance was thereby maintained between the superpowers. In
1955, this condition in post-Second World War international
politics was rhetorically described by Lester Pearson, an American
Diplomat, as the ‘balance of terror’.

IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM

As important concepts of international relations, imperialism and

colonialism are difficult to understand separately, because these
concepts are overlapping and somewhat interchangeable. Some of
the well-known definitions of imperialism seem like definitions of
colonialism, and vice versa. In his classic Imperialism: A Study, J.
A. Hobson failed to distinguish between the two and ended up
defining colonialism, rendering injustice to the title of his book.
Hobson had little choice to do otherwise, because the two concepts
are almost similar. Imperialism is often linked to the building of an
empire by an alien power in an alien land, and direct rule of that
empire; colonialism refers to the annexation of territory by a
foreign power, and rule over the people of that territory. So there is
hardly any difference between the two concepts. Consider, for
instance, a well-known definition of imperialism offered by Parker
T. Moon: ‘Imperialism…means domination of non-European
native races by totally dissimilar European nations.’ (Palmer and
Perkins: 1953). This could well be the definition of colonialism if
the word ‘imperialism’ is replaced by ‘colonialism’. V. I. Lenin’s
views on imperialism as the highest stage of development of
monopoly capitalism is frequently referred to analyse the concept
of colonialism. Some scholars tend to distinguish between the two
by arguing that imperialism is a broader concept, which implies
the desire of a state to create and rule empires in different parts of
the world. In comparison, according to them, colonialism is
narrower as it refers to somewhat small administrative units,
known as colonies. But this distinction gets blurred when both the
concepts actually mean occupation of territories and direct rule of
the people living within those territories against their will. The
distinction gets erased due to the simultaneous usage of these two
terms both by common men and scholars. For instance, the two-
hundred-year-long British rule in the Indian subcontinent is
referred to as both British Imperialism and British Colonialism, by
wise men and by not-so-wise people. The two concepts are very
similar and somewhat interchangeable. Henceforth, this study will
use the term ‘colonialism’ to refer to both the concepts.

Colonialism is the practice of domination of one state over another

through political, administrative, and economic control. In the
past, it was also a process of acquiring territories by the
industrially advanced European powers in Asia, Latin America and
Africa. The rise of capitalism in Europe from the twelfth to the
fifteenth centuries, and the Industrial Revolution, also in Europe,
later, gave birth to a group of capitalists who gradually found
markets exhausted in their own countries and looked for markets
abroad. Colonial or imperial expansion became the order of the
day, and new and newer territories in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America were captured. Advances in agriculture, industries, and
military made the European states stronger. Science and rational
knowledge prospered in Europe simultaneously. The age of
discovery witnessed the rise of colonial powers in Europe. England,
France, Portugal, Holland and Spain established their colonial
empires in direct competition to each other. The colonies were
acquired through the use of trade, diplomacy and force. Portugal,
for instance, reaped huge profit through lucrative ‘spice trade’.
Portugal maintained sea-borne empires in populated Asian and
Latin American societies with ulterior financial motives. Britain,
on the other hand, had both financial and political motives. At its
peak from eighteenth to mid-twentieth century, Britain possessed
colonial empires comprising more than one-fifth of the world’s
land surface.

Most of the colonies comprised ‘native-coloured’ people. The

‘white’ colonial masters looked down upon them as uncivilized,
unruly, backward, and barbaric. The relationship between the
colonial masters and the native people was that of domination and
subjugation. The masters rationalized that it was their obligation,
the ‘white man’s burden’, to civilize the backward masses.
Christian missionaries were used to ‘civilize’ the native people, and
allegations of religious conversions were raised against the
colonizers. Considering the native population simply as a source of
cheap labour, they exploited them by inducting them into the
armed forces to fight their brethren, as well as to pursue colonial
aggression in newer territories. By distinguishing the ‘whites’ from
the ‘coloured’ in all spheres of socio-political life, a crude and
extreme form of racism was practised by the colonial rulers.

Since a colony is a territory ruled directly by the colonial power,

the local population had almost no voice in the government. In a
passively intelligent manner, the European rulers gave the ‘native
elites’ some major benefits in order to gain socio-political control.
They attempted socialization with certain key local groups to
extract loyalty to the colonial rulers. The cost was little, but the
gain enormous. The European colonizers forced their language
upon the local inhabitants, and also imparted education in it. The
natives were considered culturally inferior to the colonizers. From
the newly annexed colonial territories, minerals and other raw
materials were extracted and shipped away to home countries to
support industries. Instead of food crops, the colonizers insisted on
cultivating exportable cash crops like indigo, sugarcane, jute, coffee
and tea. Infrastructural facilities were built to serve the purpose of
the colonial rulers rather than the local people. The colonial rulers
practically cared a little for the colonized people.

The process of decolonization started after the Second World War

in most parts of Asia, Africa and South America. The European
colonial powers suffered heavily during the war. Their economies
being hit hard, it became a burden for them to maintain large
colonial empires. The economic and political costs of maintaining
colonies were too high after the Second World War. Most
colonizers lost interest and granted independence to many colonies
in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In some former colonies,
independence came through peaceful ways, while in some other,
violence accompanied independence.

Political independence of the erstwhile colonies, however, could

not solve their woes. Socioeconomic problems continued to haunt
the newly independent states as they were trying to stand on their
feet. For these decolonized countries, the state-building process
proved very difficult with little economic resources, vastly
impoverished and illiterate people, and inadequate industrial and
communication infrastructures. Fostering economic growth with a
sustained development, and installing a democratic government
with matured political institutions, remained a distant dream for
them. A new form of dependency developed. For initiating their
state-building process, the newly independent countries looked for
resources, and the developed states of the West were ready to give
these countries loans and economic assistance, with very high rates
of interests, and reciprocal socio-economic benefits. The new states
had little option to deny these loans, and they again became
victims of exploitation at the hands of the rich states. Economic
domination by the rich countries led to a new kind of indirect
control over the poor states, a control that also pervaded the socio-
political-cultural sectors in the developing world. This new form of
domination, of the newly independent poor countries by the rich
states, after the Second World War, came to be known as
neocolonialism.

NEOCOLONIALISM

A group of third world scholars had first used the term

‘neocolonialism’ in the early 1950s to describe the economic
exploitation of the erstwhile colonies by the rich, industrially
developed states. Neocolonialism is different from colonialism.
Here domination is more indirect and exercised mainly through
economic means like loans, grants, aids, and other forms of
economic assistance given by the rich states. Unlike colonialism, it
is not direct political rule of a state by a foreign power, through
annexation of territories. Neocolonial domination is mainly
perpetuated by indirect methods in the guise of a ‘donor’ or a
benevolent ‘helper’.

The colonies of Asia, Africa and Latin America became

independent within the first twenty-five years after the Second
World War. These former colonies aspired to have free and
politically stable societies with satisfactory levels of economic
development. But their aspirations remained largely unfulfilled as
they had to depend on the developed states for their survival. The
problems created by colonialism continued, and in some countries,
got worse. The advanced countries exploited the economic
backwardness of the new independent states by giving them
economic assistance, but subjugating them to their wishes and
dictates. This novel form of indirect exploitation came to be known
as neocolonialism. It is a system of legal political independence of
the former colonies, but a de facto economic dependence of these
countries on the rich states.

Methods of Neocolonialism

Neocolonial domination is perpetuated through several methods—

economic, socio-political, and cultural. The following are the
‘economic’ methods of neocolonialism. (1) Loans, aids, grants, and
donations to poor countries. Such economic leverages are not
without strings. Countries providing them extract socio-political
benefits, besides charging huge interest rates. (2) Creation of debt
traps through economic assistance. Poor nations which take loans
from the advanced states at high rates of interest are often unable
to repay not only the principal amount, but even the interests. So,
the amount of loan, keeps on multiplying. The situation turns grim
when poor states require fresh loans for developmental projects.
They need to take fresh loans from rich states without repayment
of the earlier loans. As a result, they become burdened with huge
debts. Sometimes rich states ‘waive’ loans, but they ask for many
favours before making such write-offs. The poor states cannot but
have to agree to the conditions set by them, to come out of the
‘debt trap’. (3) Sometimes, multinational corporations (MNCs) are
accused of serving the interests of their parent states, mostly
developed states of the West, in their exploitation of the people of
the poor countries. They employ cheap and unskilled labour and
pay relatively less wages to them in host countries. During the Cold
War, they were also accused of investing money to topple or install
governments according to the likings of their parent states.

Here is a classification of the ‘socio-political’ methods of

domination used by the neocolonial states. (1) Creation of social
unrest in former colonies by dividing them territorially, or on
ethnic and religious lines. India, Palestine, Congo and several other
former colonies are instances in this regard. (2) Influencing
domestic politics by bribing political parties, or arming and paying
groups that can topple an ‘unwanted’ government, and install a
‘preferred’ one. (3) Assassination of local leaders who prove to be
‘obstacles’ to the political game plans of the neocolonial masters.
(4) Helping splinter groups to carry out subversive and terrorist
activities. (5) Installation of military bases near the former colonies
to keep them under pressure, and to frighten their political elite
with a view to make them succumb.

‘Cultural imperialism’ is another way in which neocolonialism is

perpetuated. It is the way in which the indigenous culture of a state
is supplanted by the foreign cultures of the dominant powers.
‘Cultural’ methods of neocolonialism may be classified as follows.
(1) Encouraging use of the language of the dominant powers for
educational, social and official purposes. (2) Establishment of
lavish cultural missions to attract the local people towards the alien
culture. (3) Flooding the market with books, films, CDs and DVDs
of games and films, and foreign newspapers. (4) Use of satellite
television channels to air popular TV programmes of the dominant
countries. (5) Creation of web sites, online search engines and
social networking sites to attract more and more people and gain
popularity. It is believed that neocolonial powers spend
astronomical amounts to sustain cultural imperialism because this
is a very potent, friendly and gentle method to ‘infiltrate’ a country
and its culture. Neocolonial powers also reap huge profits through
the business of entertainment and culture.

Many scholars like Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin and

Wallerstein tend to believe that neocolonialism brings more
miseries to the poor, peripheral states of the world. The methods of
perpetuating neocolonialism are more subtle, yet sharper than
those of colonialism. Sometimes an affected state and its people
fail to realize that they are the targets of exploitation, and potential
victims. However, it is argued by many, particularly in the West,
that with the onset and expansion of globalization and information
revolution, neocolonialism has become an outdated concept. But as
long as the big divide between the rich North and the poor South
exists, neocolonialism as a concept will remain alive, and its critics
will continue to find many takers.

RACISM

The term ‘race’ refers to a group of people believed to have

common ancestors, different from other such groups in their
physical features. Racism is the discrimination or prejudice based
on race. Sociologists define racism as enjoyment of privileges by
certain groups over others on the basis of colour of the skin, hair
and eye; and also height, sharpness of the nose, and a sense of
superiority of the group. Racism emerged out of culturally
sanctioned beliefs that defend the advantages the whites enjoy
because of the subordinated position—social, economic and
physical— of the non-white people.

Racism raised its ugly head with the system of slavery that existed
in North America since the advent of the early settlers who
emigrated there. Gradually, it spread to other places. With the
early settlers fully dominating the colonial territories in terms of
number and economy, the native populations were pushed to the
margins of the society. Australia, New Zealand and the United
States provided leading cases of such societies. Soon, the control of
the states was in the hands of the colonial settlers. The colonial
rulers brought the ships of Africans who constituted cheap labour
force in these territories. Till the eighteenth century, at least eight
million slaves were transported to North and South America. The
institution of slavery was legitimized, and in the USA slavery was
governed by an extensive body of law. Each state had its own slave
codes and body of court decisions. Slavery in the United States
lasted till the end of the nineteenth century. During the age of
slavery, the blacks were considered as intellectually inferior to the
whites. Slaves were regarded as personal properties of their
masters. Racial segregation, that formally separated blacks from
whites, especially in South America, became a prevalent practice in
other parts of the world, and existed till the twentieth century. US
President Abraham Lincoln’s ‘Emancipation Proclamation of 1863’
imposed legal prohibition on the practice of slavery in the USA.
However, outlawing slavery did not eradicate racial discrimination
overnight. Progressive human rights movements in twentieth-
century America has worked for the establishment of equal rights
by eliminating racial segregation.

History bears proof that racism caused pain, suffering and

bloodshed. German dictator Adolf Hitler’s persecution,
enslavement, and methodical elimination of the Jews, popularly
known as the ‘holocaust’, and ‘apartheid’ policies in South Africa,
were manifestations of racism. Hitler’s belief in the racial
supremacy of the Germans encouraged and justified Germany’s
aggression against non-German states during the Second World
War and the holocaust. The Germans considered themselves the
superior people, the Aryans, the ‘master race’ who enjoyed the
right to oppress the racially inferior groups. For this kind of
racism, six million Jews were either killed or made to work to
death in Germany during this period.

A policy of racial discrimination was prevalent in South Africa even

in the latter part of the twentieth century. South African racial
segregation policy was adopted by the white minority governments
against the black majority population until 1990. It came into force
in South Africa in 1948. The ‘superior’ white European settlers
imposed a political system in South Africa known as Apartheid
 (meaning apart-ness). This system separated the whites from the
non-whites. The minority whites forced the non-white inhabitants
to enjoy only restricted rights. No interaction was allowed between
the whites and the non-whites. There were schools, colleges,
railway stations, parks, public toilets, movie halls, restaurants and
unskilled jobs meant exclusively for the non-white population.
Their entry was restricted to the places meant for the whites only.
So intermingling of races was strictly prohibited. Soon South Africa
became a country tormented by racial atrocities. Not only was
Apartheid prevalent in South Africa, but the blacks were killed
brutally on the streets, playgrounds and even in the police stations.
From 1948 to 1990, South Africa had an appalling record of cases
of human rights violation. After his release from jail, Nelson
Mandela, the black leader of South Africa, campaigned hard
against Apartheid laws. Under tremendous international and
domestic pressure, the South African government eventually
abandoned the Apartheid policy and established a new regime
under the leadership of Nelson Mandela.

Racism, although legally prohibited, exists in our mindset even

today, in the form of social discrimination. The roots of racism lie
deep within the foundations of different societies which distinguish
people on the basis of colour of skin, or birth in a socially accepted
‘superior’ family belonging to a ‘superior’ group in the social
hierarchy. Till this day, racism is practised indirectly in different
parts of the world, causing resentment among the racially
discriminated people. For instance, police brutality against racial
minorities is common in many countries. Racial minorities also
face political and economic discrimination, as well as social
ostracism, in many parts of the world. The fight for equal rights
and fundamental freedoms of all people, everywhere in the world,
is thus far from over.

QUESTIONS

1. Describe the role of the state as an actor in international relations.

2. Analyse the significance of the non-state actors in international relations.
3. What do you mean by National Power? Discuss its main elements.
4. What is Balance of Power? Describe its characteristics.
5. Examine the important methods of Balance of Power.
6. Write a short note on Balance of Terror.
7. What do you mean by imperialism? Is it different from colonialism?
8. What do you mean by neocolonialism? Discuss the methods of establishing neocolonialism.
9. Write a note on racism in contemporary international politics.

4
Concepts and Techniques of Foreign Policy

It is almost impossible for any state to live in isolation from

international politics in today’s world. Interdependence among
states has increased tremendously. Each state strives to establish
healthy relations with other states. Consequently, a country’s
foreign policy has assumed enormous significance, much like its
domestic policy. A country’s image and prestige, as well as the
survival of its government, very often rests on its foreign policy.
Every state therefore wants to formulate a definite foreign policy to
interact with fellow states in international politics. But a country’s
foreign policy is not an abstract phenomenon. It is very carefully
formulated by the government in the national interest, taking into
consideration various factors like the tradition and cultural
heritage of the country, its socio-political history, ideas and
thoughts of its leaders, and also the changing aspects of
international politics. The formulation and implementation of a
country’s foreign policy is thus not an easy job, because several
important issues are associated with it. These issues relate to the
concepts and techniques of foreign policy, which are discussed in
detail in this chapter.

NATIONAL INTEREST

An important concept associated with the formulation of a foreign

policy is that of national interest. Since the term ‘national interest’
is used very frequently in domestic and international politics, its
exact meaning remains vague. National interest may refer to
several things at the same time. It may mean the aspirations of a
country, its policies and programmes, as also emotions and
debates surrounding them. An example here may help to illustrate.
Let us say that India aspires to become a major economic force in
the near future. The policies and programmes surrounding this
aspiration may be said to be India’s national interests. However,
there could be a serious debate on whether this (becoming a major
economic force) is India’s only national interest. It may have other
aspirations as well. For instance, India may also try to become a
major military power in the near future. This particular aspiration,
and the policies and programmes to achieve this dream, may also
be said to be India’s national interests. Therefore, the term
national interest has various meanings. But a simple definition
may be as follows: National Interest is composed of different
aspirations of the state, as also of the policies and programmes to
fulfill these aspirations. National Interest is not a fixed singular
notion; it is the collective product of a country’s aspirations and
interests.

National interest is not a value-free concept; it is linked to values

like morality and altruism. No country in the world can ignore all
values to fulfill its aspirations. National interest, if value-free, may
become a threat to international peace and security. Experts like
Joseph Frankel, Norman D. Palmer and Howard C. Perkins have
pointed to the significance of values in the concept of national
interest. A country’s national interest can never be mechanical,
inhuman and absolutely selfish. It must respect the interests of
other nations as well. In this world, every country formulates and
implements its foreign policy to protect its own national interest.
In doing so, it can never harm the interests of other states. In other
words, if every country tries to protect its national interest in an
aggressive manner, war would be inevitable and the world would
be a dangerous place to live in. It is precisely because of this danger
that the national interest of a state cannot be completely value-
free.

However, an important debate crops up here. If the purpose of a

country’s foreign policy is to protect its own national interest, how
can it respect and accommodate the national interests of others?
Would a country respect others’ interests at the cost of its own
interests? The notions of cooperation and compromise are very
important to solve this debate. A country would first try to protect
its own interests as far as possible, and only then try to
accommodate those of others. In other words, while protecting its
national interests, a country must also cooperate with others and
accommodate others as far as possible. In our earlier example,
India must first fulfill its aspiration of becoming a major economic
force. But in doing so, it cannot suppress other countries having
similar ambitions. Through mutual cooperation and compromise,
all nations can effectively pursue their respective national
interests. On the contrary, if each nation tries to follow its national
interests aggressively, war would be the inevitable outcome. For a
nation, war is the last resort. When all other avenues of
cooperation and compromise are closed, a nation may go to war to
protect its interests. But normally states try to cooperate with one
another and pursue their respective interests in an atmosphere of
peace, because a peaceful condition is the most ideal condition to
pursue national interest. In order to establish peace, every nation
must be prepared to sacrifice some of its aims and aspirations and
accommodate others. National interest is thus never a value-free
concept. Ethical, moral and altruistic issues are linked with it.

National interest is very well reflected in a country’s foreign policy.

A foreign policy is made and implemented to protect the national
interest of a country. Since national interest is not value-free, a
foreign policy cannot afford to be value-neutral as well. In other
words, a foreign policy is never unnecessarily aggressive; it tries to
respect values of mutual cooperation, understanding and peaceful
coexistence. An aggressive foreign policy seldom succeeds in
international relations. A flexible, accommodating foreign policy is
more near to reality, and more likely to succeed. The success of a
foreign policy depends on certain techniques and instruments as
well. One such instrument of foreign policy is diplomacy.

DIPLOMACY

Every foreign policy has two sides—one is the making

(formulation) of the policy, and the other its implementation. If
national interest is associated with the formulation part, diplomacy
is linked with the implementation part of a foreign policy. For the
success of a foreign policy, the role of diplomacy is very crucial.
Diplomacy is that art which, throughout ages, has implemented
foreign policy in reality. Put simply, foreign policy is applied
through the instrument of diplomacy.

Diplomacy is an ancient instrument of foreign policy. The city-

states of ancient Greece had diplomatic links with one another.
According to the famous Greek political philosopher Thucydides,
the ancient Greek city-states developed a very well-structured
diplomatic link in around 500 BC. This ancient art is still alive in
the twenty-first century, despite many challenges and
transformations. Its basic norm has, however, remained the same:
diplomacy is an instrument through which states maintain
relations among themselves.

Definition

It is possible to define the term ‘diplomacy’ in simple words. As

already mentioned, it is an instrument through which countries
maintain relations with one another. According to The Oxford
English Dictionary, Diplomacy is ‘the management of
international relations by negotiation’ or ‘the method by which
these relations are adjusted and managed’. Theoretically,
diplomacy is different from foreign policy. A foreign policy is
applied through diplomacy, but diplomacy has nothing to do with
the making of foreign policy. In other words, the concept of foreign
policy has a much wider perspective. Besides diplomacy, other
instruments are required for the successful implementation of
foreign policy. Diplomacy is one of the instruments for the
application of foreign policy. In that sense, diplomacy as a concept
is narrower in scope than foreign policy. After this analysis, a
modern and simple definition of diplomacy may be
attempted: Diplomacy is the method of communication among
governments for the maintenance of international relations.

Main Tasks of Diplomacy

Diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy performs several

important functions. Hans J. Morgenthau in his book Politics
Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace identified four
major tasks of diplomacy. These are: (1) to determine the major
objectives of the state, and the power actually available to fulfill
these objectives; (2) diplomacy must assess the objectives of other
states and the power actually available to fulfill these objectives;
(3) diplomacy must assess to what extent these objectives are
compatible with each other; (4) diplomacy must employ the means
suited to the pursuit of its objectives. According to Morgenthau,
‘Failure in any one of these tasks may jeopardize the success of
foreign policy and with it the peace of the world.’ In his analysis of
these four tasks of diplomacy, he opines that the first major task of
diplomacy is to assess the objectives and aspirations of one’s own
nation. These objectives must be determined in the light of the
power actually available to the state to fulfill such objectives. If any
nation sets objectives that it has little power to achieve, it would
indulge in inept diplomacy. Therefore, every nation must set its
objectives in accordance with its national power.

Further, it is not enough to assess one’s own objectives and

powers; diplomacy must also assess the objectives of other nations
and the actual powers available to them to fulfill such objectives.
This is the second major task of diplomacy. This is not an easy task,
as assessing others’ objectives and powers is extremely difficult. It
involves guesswork, examining the available information in a
pragmatic manner, and shrewd calculations. Diplomacy must not
view others’ powers and objectives casually and, at the same time,
it must not eulogize the powers and objectives of other nations.
Therefore, this continuous assessment process is difficult, yet a
vital function of diplomacy.

The third major function of diplomacy, according to Morgenthau,

is to determine to what extent the objectives are compatible to each
other. This means that a diplomat must continuously compare the
objectives and powers of his nation with the objectives and actual
powers of other nations. For example, Indian diplomacy must
assess the objectives and powers of India with those of China or
Pakistan or USA. This is again not an easy task, and it requires
adequate efficiency to perform this function.

The fourth important task of diplomacy, as per Morgenthau’s view,

is to employ suitable means to fulfill the objectives of his nation.
Diplomacy must employ all possible means to achieve its goals. A
skilled diplomat will employ methods according to the demands of
the situation. Diplomacy may engage in negotiation, persuasion,
appeal, or use the threat of force. An excessive emphasis on a
particular method may be detrimental to foreign policy. Therefore,
diplomacy uses a combination of means to fulfill a nation’s
objectives. A weak nation with little military power, however,
cannot use the threat of force to fulfill its objectives.
Morgenthau analysed the functions of diplomacy in the context of
power. Morgenthau, an exponent of the Realist Theory in
International Relations, believed that political power is a key
element in international as well as domestic politics. He tried to
analyse international relations in terms of power. Therefore, in his
analysis of the functions of diplomacy, Morgenthau also used the
concept of power. But such an analysis of diplomacy in the light of
power is not above controversy. Continuous assessment of powers
and objectives may not be accurate. Even if a diplomat can assess
the power of his nation, it is impossible for him to assess the
powers of other nations very accurately. However, in Morgenthau’s
‘four tasks of diplomacy’, the essential duty of a diplomat may be
observed: a diplomat will always apply his reason and wisdom to
assess his objectives and also that of other nations. In this context,
it is necessary to analyse the functions of diplomats. Diplomacy as
an instrument of foreign policy is actually put into practice by the
diplomats. Countries communicate with one another mainly
through diplomats, even in this age of technologically-driven
communication channels. Therefore, it is essential to know the
functions of diplomats.

Functions of Diplomats

Norman D. Palmer and Howard C. Perkins identified four major

functions of diplomats. These are: (1) representation; (2)
negotiation; (3) reporting; and (4) protection of the interests of the
nation and its citizens in foreign lands. These functions are
essentially vital for the success of diplomacy, and require careful
analysis.
Representation

A diplomat represents his country in a foreign land. All diplomats

are, in this sense, the chief representatives of their countries in an
alien land. For example, the Indian Ambassador to the USA
officially represents India in America. This function of
representation is important as well as sensitive. The personality of
diplomats, their conversational skills, behavioural patterns, social
contacts in their place of posting, all are very crucial for their
success as a diplomat and for the success of the foreign policy of
their country. A diplomat bridges two countries, their own states
and the states where they are working. Their main duties are to
implement the foreign policies of their governments and to protect
the national interests of their countries in the alien land. For
exercising their duties successfully, they have to cultivate social
contacts on foreign land. They must establish contacts, among
others, with leading politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals, the
military, and business persons. Through their social contacts, they
can ‘sell’ the foreign policies of their countries successfully. But at
the same time, they must be very careful about their social
relationships, because these may be misused by vested interests. If
diplomats do not cultivate their social relations carefully, their own
images and the images of their countries may suffer. A diplomat’s
functions can be compared with that of a ‘salesman’. Like a
successful ‘salesman’, a successful diplomat has to develop an
attractive personality and important social contacts to ‘sell’ their
products. Here, their ‘products’ are their national interests and
foreign policies. They must ‘sell’ the national interests of his
country effectively in the foreign land. Their governments are
heavily dependent on them for the successful implementation of
their foreign policies and for the protection of their national
interests. The function of representation is thus very important for
the diplomats as well as for their country.
Negotiation

An important technique of diplomacy is negotiation. The success of

diplomacy depends upon successful negotiation. A successful
diplomat, in other words, must be an able negotiator. He may have
to participate in bilateral, trilateral and multilateral negotiations,
and for each type he may have to adopt different approaches. In
international relations, it is possible to solve problems or diffuse
tensions through negotiation. The art of negotiation involves a
diplomat’s ability to influence others, his power of persuasion
through conversational skills, knowledge about prevailing
international politics, wisdom about how and when to move
forward or backward. Diplomats have to be very good calculators
of events, time and space. A problem that the diplomat faces as a
negotiator is how much to compromise and how much to claim,
without sacrificing his national interest. A skilled diplomat can
strike a fine balance between the two. The success of a foreign
policy and the prestige of a nation often depend on successful
negotiation. Therefore, this function of diplomacy is very
important as well as sensitive for the diplomat.
Reporting

This is another significant function of the diplomat. According to

Palmer and Perkins, the report that a diplomat sends from his
place of posting to his native land can be treated as the ‘raw
material’ for the foreign policy of his country. A diplomat must
analyse the social, economic, and political conditions of his country
of work and send an unbiased report to his government. So, a
diplomat must have adequate knowledge about the socio-
economic-political milieu of his country of posting. Moreover, his
reports can determine the course of bilateral relations. For
example, the Indian Ambassador to the United States (US) would
submit periodical reports to the Government of India, citing not
only the socio-economic-political conditions in the US, but also
issues like bilateral trade and commerce, the scope for Indian
business in the US and vice versa, and the future political and
economic scenario in the US. He would also report about the
attitude of important political leaders and legislators toward India.
His reports would also highlight, among others, the present
scenario and the future possibilities of India-US educational,
scientific, strategic and cultural exchanges. The Indian government
would study his reports carefully and take policy decisions with
regard to bilateral relations with the US, based on such reports.
This shows the significance of the function of the reportings of the
diplomat. An objective, unbiased and impartial report is always
treated as a very good source material for foreign policy.
Protection of the Interest of the Nation and Its Citizens in Foreign Land

A diplomat has the responsibility to protect the interest of his

nation and its citizens in his country of work. As per provisions of
different bilateral and international treaties and agreements, a
diplomat shall protect the interests of his nation and its citizens in
a foreign land. The Indian Ambassador in Japan, for example, shall
protect the interests of the citizens of India in Japan. Indian
citizens can contact the Indian Embassy in Tokyo during any crisis
or mishap like natural disaster, wreckage of ships or accidents.
Similarly, American citizens can contact their embassy in any
country for help during any kind of crisis—personal, natural or
socio-political. A diplomat also tries to promote his nation in a
foreign land. Diplomats endeavour to promote the culture,
education, trade and commerce, tourism of their country in their
land of work. For this purpose, they organize seminars, symposia,
exhibitions, tours, and investment or educational fairs in foreign
land to attract local people towards their country. In these
seminars and fairs, they highlight the policies of their governments
and try to draw the attention of the local people towards these
policies. Hence, this function is one of the significant aspects of
successful diplomacy.

Open and Secret Diplomacy

Diplomacy, since its inception to the later part of the nineteenth

century, was a clandestine affair. So, for a very large period
diplomatic activities were conducted secretly. It was believed that
since diplomacy is integrally linked with national interest, it would
be wise to keep it a secret for the benefit of the nation. There are
myriad examples of secret treaties—products of secret diplomacy—
in international politics. The Berlin Congress Treaty of 1878 was
kept a secret. The Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and
Russia in 1916 was also kept in the dark. Before that, the ‘Entente
Cordiale’ (Treaty of Friendship) between Britain and France in
1904 was surreptitiously conducted. Even several provisions of the
Yalta Agreement of 1945 were created behind the curtain. The
causes for secret diplomacy, as revealed later, were national
interest and war-time exigencies. But one definite reason behind
secret diplomacy was the fear of adverse public reaction towards
certain treaties or agreements. Because of this fear, several treaties
that had the potential to ignite public passion were kept secret.

From the first half of the twentieth century, the demand for open
diplomacy gained ground. People started to denounce secret
diplomacy mainly for two reasons: the spread of democratic ideas
and the hatred that a nation incurred due to secret diplomacy.
Gradually the demand for treaties concluded in full public view,
and ratified by the Parliament, gained popularity. Woodrow
Wilson, the former US President, was an ardent supporter of open
diplomacy. In his address before the US Congress in 1918, Wilson
called for full public knowledge about every treaty or agreement
signed by governments. After that, the Covenant of the League of
Nations and the Charter of the United Nations proclaimed full
support for open diplomacy. The complexities created in
international politics by secret diplomacy during the First World
War and before it, also inspired people to support open diplomacy.

Open diplomacy has two features: (1) rejection of the conclusion of

secret treaties; (2) conducting of diplomatic negotiations in full
public glare. But experts like Joseph Frankel and others have
questioned whether it is possible in reality to go for open
diplomacy. Frankel supports the demand for the rejection of secret
treaties, because secret treaties contradict the ideals of democracy.
But he is sceptical about the success of open diplomacy. He feels
that open diplomacy can bring embarrassment for a nation.
Diplomats use various shrewd methods in diplomatic dialogues—
they often utter what they do not mean, and do not utter what they
mean. They may regularly retract from verbal promises made by
them. They may have to do this for the protection of their national
interest. But it would be impossible for diplomats to use all their
shrewd calculations in full public glare. Once they promise
something before the people, they would not be able to retract.
Their national interests may then suffer, thinks Frankel. Several
other experts like Harold Nicolson, Walter Lippmann, Palmer,
Perkins, Sisley Huddleston and Morgenthau have described the
concept of open diplomacy as unrealistic. According to these
scholars, political leaders would propagate open diplomacy in
order to get public support, but in practice they would follow the
rules of secret diplomacy, because diplomacy and national interest
are inseparable.

There is truth in the view that open diplomacy is not realistically

possible even in this age of globalization and democracy. No
democratic country can afford to bring all diplomatic negotiations
to light. For national security purposes, all democratic nations
keep some areas of diplomacy secret. But nowadays treaties are not
kept out of public knowledge as most of them require the
ratification of the national Parliament, although not all the details
of diplomacy are brought to light. In fact, the debate on secret
versus open diplomacy is still very strong. While democratic ideas
demand open diplomacy, national security concerns support the
rules of secret diplomacy. This debate would be stronger in the
future with the spread of democratic ideals across the globe.

Economic Diplomacy

Economic diplomacy has assumed enormous significance since the

onset of globalization and gained popularity in every part of the
world after the Cold War. Economic diplomacy means enhancing
cooperation with other states through increasing trade and
commercial relations. Economic diplomacy avoids political
differences, and places greater emphasis on strengthening
friendship through economic cooperation. During the Cold War,
the bipolar nature of world politics created an atmosphere of
political and military rivalry. The world suffered from the fear of a
real, devastating war between the two superpowers, which were
nuclear states. In this atmosphere of tension and rivalry,
diplomacy was mainly dominated by political and military issues.
The end of the Cold War in 1991 created a unipolar world where
intense military and political rivalry were no longer witnessed. In
the absence of bloc politics, nations gave more attention to
economic diplomacy. In a changed international order after the
Cold War, economic diplomacy gradually gained momentum in
different parts of the world.

However, we must remember in this context that economic

diplomacy began its journey immediately after the Second World
War. The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan or the Warsaw Pact
were forms of economic diplomacy in some way or the other. The
main aim of all these programmes and pacts was to strengthen
relations with countries through economic assistance. Economic
diplomacy was born during the Cold War, but gained momentum
after it. As stated already, economic diplomacy sets aside political
differences and concentrates on trade and commercial relations,
following several techniques. It tries to enhance trade with other
countries, creates investment opportunities, establishes economic
zones and free trade areas for hassle free trade, and encourages
free movement of labour and capital. The onset of globalization
gave a fillip to economic diplomacy. By the 1980s, third world
countries had started liberalizing their economies. This
liberalization programme had presented an unprecedented
opportunity to the developed world to engage in economic
diplomacy with the third world countries. On the other hand, the
third world countries also grabbed this opportunity and got
themselves seriously involved in economic diplomacy with the
developed world.

The best example of how economic diplomacy sets aside political

differences is the recent US-China bilateral relationship. From the
political point of view, the US and China stand far apart. The US
has a liberal democratic political system, whereas in China a one-
party system exists. American politicians and legislators complain
regularly about violation of democratic and human rights in China.
Official American documents like the Annual Human Rights
Report, released by the State Department, regularly place China in
the group of countries that violate human rights and democratic
freedoms of the people. Yet China and the US share a very strong
economic relationship. At present (2010), the amount of American
investment in China is more than ten times the amount of
American investment in India. China’s huge market and its
socialist market economy have attracted American investment in a
massive way. Despite political differences, the US and China are
engaged in serious economic diplomacy. The latter is now the
fourth largest trading partner of the former. Therefore, it can be
stated that economic diplomacy has set aside political differences
between the two states. Other countries, especially India and
Pakistan, can emulate this trend of economic diplomacy as
provided by the US and China. Economic proximity between these
traditional rivals can obliterate political differences and can
generate a new era of cooperation in South Asia. Nevertheless,
economic diplomacy has definitely ushered in new optimism in
international relations.

Future of Diplomacy

In an age of spectacular development of information technology,

the role and importance of professional diplomats are coming
under scrutiny. Now two Heads of Government can directly
communicate between themselves over telephone, fax, e-mail or
video-conferencing and discuss necessary political and related
issues. The services of a professional diplomat may not be
necessary in this case. This trend has raised doubts over the future
of diplomacy. For a long time, from the birth of diplomacy in
ancient Greece to the Second World War, professional diplomats
were the undisputed channels of diplomacy. But since the Second
World War, due to the unprecedented development of science and
technology, traditional notion of diplomacy faced a crisis.
Moreover, with the spread of democratic ideals and growing
demands for open diplomacy, the traditional form of diplomacy is
also facing a crisis. Democratic institutions like the Parliament,
media and peoples’ organizations are trying to influence the
process of diplomacy. The world of diplomacy is, therefore, no
longer the exclusive domain of the professional diplomats only;
science and technology and democratic ideals have made deep
inroads into this exclusive world.

What is the role of diplomacy then? If the prime ministers of India

and Britain can directly talk over telephone or video-conferencing
and solve all problems, where does the diplomat fit in? This
question may strengthen doubts about the future of diplomacy. But
at this juncture, it must be pointed out that neither diplomacy nor
the importance of the diplomats have dwindled over the years.
When two heads of government are talking directly, they are also
engaged in diplomacy; and in this case it is known as direct
diplomacy. Moreover, when the prime ministers of India and
Britain are talking over telephone, the groundwork and issues for
such talks have been prepared by the diplomats, because the
politicians are not always very well acquainted with every detail of
foreign policies. This is why when the heads of government meet
directly, they are accompanied by senior diplomats and
bureaucrats. Moreover, every nation carries out diplomatic
missions in other countries in order to maintain healthy relations
with others, as well as to protect its national interest and
implement its foreign policy in other nations. The role of the
diplomats is very crucial in this context. If diplomacy had lost its
relevance, countries would not have spent enormous sums to
maintain diplomatic missions abroad. Even in this age of advanced
information technology and globalization, diplomacy is mainly
used by professional diplomats who use science and technology to
sharpen the art. Diplomacy is not conducted by politicians
frequently as they are not aware of its tricks and as they do not
have the time to pursue it. If any politician tries to take too much
interest in diplomacy, his political career and the interest of his
state would suffer. Therefore, he prefers to leave it to the diplomat
and seek his advice when meeting, or talking over phone to, fellow
politicians from foreign lands.

PROPAGANDA

Propaganda is an important technique by which foreign policy

aims to succeed. In ancient times, the ruling class used the
technique of propaganda to influence people to accept its
programmes and views. But scientific propaganda, according to
Joseph Frankel, started its journey in the early twentieth century.
Till the First World War (1914-18), the importance of propaganda
in international relations was negligible. American and Western
European scholars believe that during the inter-war period (1919-
39), the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany used propaganda
extensively to garner support for their views and programmes.
Since then, the use of science and technology for propaganda
started in a huge way, and the journey of scientific propaganda
began.

Definition

The idea of propaganda was first initiated by the Roman Catholic

Church. According to Frankel, the Church ‘had institutionalized
the propagation of faith through a special Sacred Congregation (de
propaganda fide) from the title of which the word “propaganda” is
derived’ (Frankel 1977: 131). The British Government during the
First World War, and later, Soviet Union and Germany, started
scientific propaganda in support of their views and programmes.
Propaganda may be simply defined as follows: A systematic
attempt to influence the minds and emotions of a target group for
a specific purpose. For propaganda radio, TV, print media and
Internet are used in modern times.

Propaganda is different from diplomacy. In the first place,

diplomacy is a government-to-government affair, whereas
propaganda is aimed at the people of other states. For instance,
during the Cold War, Soviet propaganda was aimed at the populace
of the US and West Europe; whereas American propaganda was
aimed at the populace of the Soviet Union and East European
countries. At the same time, the respective propaganda were also
used to influence the minds of their own people as well. Secondly,
diplomacy may sometimes consider the interests of other nations,
but propaganda is intensely self-centred. It is not possible for any
propaganda to highlight the policies and programmes of other
nations. The sole purpose of a propagandist is to highlight the
interest of his own nation and affect the minds of others.
Propaganda only glorifies the propagandist nation, it does not
think of others. Thirdly, while diplomacy has positive impact on
international relations, propaganda contributes nothing positive to
it. According to Frankel, propaganda, due to its selfish state-centric
character, only contributes negatively to international relations.
Self-seeking propaganda, glorifying the policies and programmes
of a particular nation, may generate a negative mindset in other
countries. This only breeds hatred and animosity in international
relations. Diplomacy and propaganda are thus different, although
they are both very useful arms of foreign policy.

Techniques

A successful propaganda may effectively be compared with

advertising and sales. Like an advertiser or a salesperson,
propagandists must fix their target group and area of operation
and have adequate knowledge about them (the area in this case is a
state). A propagandist must analyse, like an advertiser, the
demands, aspirations, emotions and fears of his target group, as
also the socioeconomic-political milieu of his area of operation,
and invent appropriate methods of propaganda. Propaganda has
several methods. Palmer and Perkins have summarized all these
methods to finally provide four important techniques of
propaganda: (1) methods of presentation; (2) techniques of gaining
attention; (3) devices for gaining response; and (4) methods of
gaining acceptance. These techniques are analysed here.

Methods of Presentation

The success of propaganda is highly dependent on the presentation

of issues. The acceptance of any propaganda depends on its art of
presentation. A propagandist can transform a lie or a halflie into
truth, and vice versa, through their ability of presentation. Palmer
and Perkins cited a very good example of how Nazi Germany used
a wrong document to ignite anti-Jew sentiments successfully
among the Christians in Europe. According to them, Hitler’s Nazi
administration aptly exploited as ‘proof’ a document
titled Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion to spread the message that
the Jews were hatching a conspiracy against the Christians to rule
the world. This propaganda created anti-Jew sentiments in Europe
and served Hitler’s purpose. However, it was discovered later that
the infamous protocol was designed by a section of the Tsarist
police to topple Tsarist rule in Russia.

During the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union resorted to
convincing propaganda. The Soviet Union, in all its official
documents, projected the picture of a very strong and solid
economy. It, however, became evident after the disintegration of
the Soviet Union that the Soviet economy was in poor shape. The
Soviet Union had to resort to such propaganda to protect its image
of a superpower and to compete with the US during the Cold War
period. The purpose of a propagandist is to win the confidence of
his target-group by any means. Before attacking Iraq in 2003, the
US had declared that it had ‘clear evidence’ to ‘prove’ that Iraq was
stockpiling WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). But till date, no
such ‘evidence’ has been found in Iraq. Behind this propaganda,
the purpose of the US was to mobilize public opinion against Iraq.
The purpose was fulfilled. Several such examples could be cited
from international politics to show how the art of presentation
made propaganda successful.

Techniques of Gaining Attention

After presentation, the next target of the propagandist is to gain

the attention of his target group. The propagandist adopts various
means to gain attention. To attract the attention of the government
of another country, methods like TV or radio speech, open letters,
protest marches are arranged. Where the target group is the people
of another country, several other methods are followed. A very
subtle yet sober method is to run educational and cultural missions
in foreign lands to spread the policies and programmes of a
particular state. Organizations like The United States Information
Agency or the British Council are spread across the globe to
implement the programmes and policies of the US and the British
governments respectively. Besides providing services like library
facilities to the people in a foreign land, these missions also attract
the attention of the local people towards the policies of their
governments through seminars, exhibitions and workshops. In
today’s world, the technique of gaining attention through direct
show of military strength has become almost obsolete. Yet, rich
nations try to show their prowess indirectly. The posh, air-
conditioned, sophisticated educational and cultural missions
silently announce the economic prosperity of the US or Britain.
The rich industrial nations also promise to give economic or
military assistance to other countries. Such promises are generally
accompanied by extensive propaganda. Normally, declarations for
economic or military assistance are made during the visits of the
heads of government to a foreign land, because such visits are
covered extensively by the media in both countries. Thus, when the
US President visits India, several American assistance or
cooperation programmes are normally announced before the
American and the Indian media. The visits of the heads of
government are now exploited by every country to gain attention to
its foreign policy. During such visits, extensive propaganda on
friendship and cooperation are taken up. Although propaganda is a
continuous activity, it may become forceful at certain times, like
the visits of heads of government. The availability of modern tools
such as satellite TV, radio, internet, fax and mobile services has
added more teeth to propaganda. Nowadays, even the terrorist
groups are taking the benefits of modern methods to gain public
attention toward their policies.

Devices for Gaining Response

A major aim of propaganda is to elicit response from the target

group. The propagandist follows various methods to elicit
response. They use sentimental appeal, nationalism, the emotion
of the people—of their own nations and that of others, too—as well
as reason, to gain response to their propaganda. A very effective
method is the use of slogans to ignite the passion of people.
Slogans like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ or ‘Workers of the world
unite’ or ‘Herr Hitler’ touched the emotions of the people to a great
extent and elicited tremendous response. In independent India,
slogans like ‘Garibi hatao’ (eradicate poverty) or ‘Green
Revolution’ or Hum do Hamaare do’ (we are two, we have two)
became very popular as well as effective to attract people’s
attention to different domestic programmes. Apart from slogans,
the use of national flags, symbols and images are quite frequent in
eliciting responses from the people. The American ‘eagle’, British
‘lion’ or Indian ‘lion pillars of Asoka’ (Asokastamva) can ignite a
sense of nationalism. According to Palmer and Perkins, the
‘Swastika’ symbol of Nazi Germany generated intense nationalistic
feelings and emotional attachments. Sometimes, charismatic
appeal by individual leaders is used to garner response from the
people. Mahatma Gandhi, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Abraham
Lincoln, Hitler and Mussolini, to name a few, had such charismatic
appeal. Nowadays, the charisma of renowned personalities from
the world of sports or of cinema, besides that of political leaders, is
used to gain support for official policies. They are frequently used
as a part of propaganda to elicit popular response as its impact
over public opinion is quite high.

Methods of Gaining Acceptance

A propagandist uses different methods to make his campaign

acceptable to people. He tries to project himself as very friendly to
his target group. If the propagandist can successfully convey the
message that ‘I am one of you,’ his chances of getting accepted are
always high. During elections, candidates use this strategy in all
countries. Even politically and financially strong candidates try to
establish a ‘people’s man’ image of theirs to garner support. A
clever portrayal of this image can help them win elections. The
propagandist also invokes religion or sycophancy around a
national icon, or talks in terms of morality, ethics and altruism to
make his propaganda acceptable. In international relations, states
also try to make their propaganda acceptable on similar lines. For
example, India frequently refers to the Gandhian principle of non-
violence and peaceful coexistence in its foreign policy. The United
States of America termed its invasion of Iraq as ‘humanitarian
intervention’, required urgently to establish human rights in Iraq.
In this instance, the US tried to make its policy acceptable to the
world by invoking the principle of morality.

A propagandist has to adopt various methods, depending upon his

target-group and area, to make his propaganda sharp and
successful. Appropriate and meaningful propaganda is essential for
the success of foreign policy and protection of national interests.
Therefore, all nations try to have an effective propaganda
machinery. Successful propaganda, however, is not an easy task. It
demands intellect, money and adequate infrastructure. It is
frequently observed that, in this, rich nations are ahead of poor
nations who lack money and infrastructure to launch massive
propaganda operations in support of their policies and
programmes.

MILITARY AND FOREIGN POLICY

The role of the military is very significant to the implementation of

any foreign policy. It is easy for a nation with a strong military to
protect its national interest and successfully implement its foreign
policy. History does not provide any example to the contrary. For
nearly 300 years, when the system of ‘Balance of Power’ was
prevalent in international politics, five to six European powers
controlled the course of international politics. These European
powers were Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, and
Portugal. All these nations had great military strength. Their
military and economic strength put them ahead of others in the
race for the control of world affairs. They were strong in
conventional arms than others. But, after the Second World War,
with the introduction of nuclear arms, these European powers
were no longer in a position to occupy a key role in world politics.
Their economies were devastated by the war. And, they were not
nuclear-weapon states when they fought the war. Consequently,
their three-hundred years of domination of world politics was
compromised and their role as determinants of world politics was
reduced to the minimum.

Bipolarity became prevalent in international relations after the

Second World War. The US and the Soviet Union, the two military
superpowers, took the lead as controllers of international politics.
Both were nuclear powers. Simultaneously, they maintained big
armies and huge reserves of conventional weapons. They used to
spend enormous sums for the maintenance of their military and
armaments. After the end of the Cold War, the US has emerged as
the only superpower. The US is very strong militarily and
economically. As a result, it can control international politics after
the Cold War. Therefore, it has been observed in this brief analysis
covering a period of four hundred years—from the beginning of the
Balance of Power system to the end of the Cold War—that only
nations strong in military could always control international
politics; not states with weak military power.

It must be mentioned in this context that economic strength is

necessary to establish a nation as a military power, because the
maintenance of powerful and a big armed force is highly expensive.
As discussed earlier, the European nations had to depart as leaders
of international politics due to the devastation of their economies
during the Second World War. It became impossible for them to
maintain a strong military, and consequently, their power receded.
The Soviet Union had to spend excessive money to maintain its
status as a military superpower during the Cold War period. But
subsequently, the Soviet economy was unable to afford this huge
spending on its military. According to experts like Peter
Calvocoressi and Norman D. Palmer, this was one of the causes for
the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Therefore a strong military
always demands an equally strong economy.

It is normally believed that the role of the military in foreign policy

is limited in a democracy, because democracy ensures civilian rule.
But this view is not altogether true. The role of the military is quite
significant in the implementation (and making) of foreign policy in
a democracy as well. A former US President declared after the
Second World War that the future of America would be ruled by
the politician-military-industry combine. His views were proved
correct. In present-day America, the role of this combine is
extremely significant not only in domestic politics, but in its
foreign policy as well. During the long forty-five years of the Cold
War, the US military played a crucial role in America’s foreign
policy. The military was frequently consulted for the making and
the implementation of the American foreign policy during this
time. After the Cold War, in recent times, the US military also
played an extremely meaningful role in the US foreign policy with
regard to Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations of the world. The
military is a significant factor in the foreign policy of other
democratic countries like Britain and India as well.

The military also plays a very active role in the making and
implementation of foreign policy in other forms of government
(one-party and totalitarian) as well. In the one-party systems of the
former Soviet Union and east European socialist countries, as well
as in present-day China, the role of the military in foreign policy
has been quite prominent. During the Cold War, the Soviet
military, like its American counterpart, was always consulted in
foreign policy matters. China also gives importance to its military
in the making of foreign policy and its implementation. For
instance, the proposal to solve any problem at the China-India
border, or any agreement between them on this issue, requires the
endorsement of the Chinese (as also Indian) military. Although
such an agreement is normally proposed and signed by civilian
rulers, they seek the approval of the military before proposing or
signing the agreement. This example shows the importance of the
military in foreign policy matters in one-party, totalitarian and
democratic political systems. Needless to say, the military is all-in-
all in military dictatorships in case of both domestic and foreign
policy matters. The men in uniform in such a system enjoy direct
exercise of state power; theirs is the last voice in domestic as well
as foreign policy issues.

The idea that the military is required only at wartime is not true.
The example cited above— a proposal or an agreement between
India and China to solve any border-related problem must be
endorsed by the military—is not one from the period of any war.
Such agreements may be signed during peace as well. If the
military of both the countries do not support this proposal or
agreement, be it at the time of war or of peace, the proposal would
be dropped from the foreign policy agenda. Therefore, the role of
the military is very crucial in foreign policy making and
implementation during peace time as well. Military support plays
an instrumental role in making a foreign policy successful. During
a war; this help can be direct; at the time of peace, it can be either
direct or indirect. In the latter case, people may or may not have
any knowledge about it. In today’s world, although any direct
manifestation of power is seldom observed, yet every state wants to
use its military as a ‘backup force’ behind its foreign policy. The
presence of a strong military helps a state protect its national
interests and pursue its foreign policy effectively.

Making of Foreign Policy

A foreign policy is usually understood as a policy of a certain state.
Therefore, we are acquainted with phrases like ‘India’s foreign
policy,’ ‘China’s foreign policy’ or ‘the foreign policy of France.’
But, if we think deeply, we will realize that what is known as
‘India’s foreign policy’ has been formulated by only a few
individuals or a certain group of India, and not its entire
population. Similar to a domestic policy, a foreign policy is also
prepared by the ruling class or the government along with some
influential people. Nowhere in the world is the foreign policy of a
country formulated by its entire populace.

Which individual(s) or group is associated with the making of a

foreign policy? A simple answer to this question is: a foreign policy
is made by the government. But the government is usually a big
group that may consist of even a hundred persons. Studies have
shown that governments in different countries usually have
twenty-five to a hundred persons. Does all of them share the same
interest in the making of a foreign policy? Foreign policy is a
specialized area. Neither does everybody have the same interest in
it, nor is everybody adept at it. For example, one who becomes the
Minister of Agriculture for the first time may not have any interest
in the foreign policy or may not be consulted by the cabinet in this
matter. Usually a few persons in the government are associated
with the making of its foreign policy, the Head of the Government
and the Foreign Minister assuming the primary role. Apart from
these two people, a few other senior ministers and bureaucrats
actively participate in the process. The Parliament, some interest
and pressure groups and the public opinion can also influence the
making of the foreign policy of a nation. The roles of these
important individuals, groups and institutions in the making of
foreign policy are analysed below.

Head of the Government and the Foreign Minister

The role of the Head of the Government (HOG) is immensely

significant in the making of foreign policy. Heads of government
like the US President, the British and the Indian prime ministers or
the German Chancellor are intimately associated with the making
of the foreign policies of their respective countries. The head may
consult some senior ministers in the cabinet for this task. If the
HOG takes keen interest in foreign policy, or if he has the charisma
of a leader with total control over the cabinet, he takes lead in the
making of the foreign policy of his country. Jawaharlal Nehru, the
first Prime Minister of India, played such a leading role in the
making of the foreign policy of his country. Normally, the HOG
consults his cabinet, but there have been instances when he
completely ignored the cabinet and took decisions on their own.
During the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis, for example, the then British
Prime Minister had sent the British forces to the Suez ignoring his
cabinet. But the head of a coalition government cannot afford to
ignore his cabinet on decisions regarding foreign policy.

If the HOG is not an expert on foreign policy, or if he does not take

an active interest in this area, his Foreign Minister becomes an
important figure. The Foreign Minister must, in that case, inform
the HOG about all policy decisions and get their approval regularly.
Sir Earnest Bevin, Foreign Minister of British Prime Minister
Clement Attlee, and John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State, who
was in the Eisenhower Cabinet, became key figures in the making
of foreign policies of their respective countries. In India, Foreign
Minister I. K. Gujral (he later became the Prime Minister) took
complete control of foreign policy matters as his Prime Minister H.
D. Deve Gowda had little interest in this regard. As Attlee,
Eisenhower and Deve Gowda did not take keen interest in foreign
policy matters as heads, their foreign ministers played key roles in
this direction. But nowadays, almost all HOGs take active interest
in the making of foreign policies because the futures of their
governments are largely dependent on the success of foreign
policies. With the help of the Foreign Minister, other senior
ministers and bureaucrats, they prepare foreign policies for their
governments.

The Legislature

In many countries, the legislature plays a relatively smaller role in

the making of its foreign policy vis-à-vis its role in domestic
politics. The Parliament of a country is more powerful in the
making of domestic laws than in the making of foreign policy. The
legislatures of different countries enjoy different degrees of power
over their respective foreign policies. For example, the legislature
in the United States called the US Congress, has more power in
foreign policy matters than the legislatures of India and Britain.
The US Senate is, in fact, the most powerful legislative body in the
world in matters of foreign policy. In India and Britain, the lower
chambers of the Parliament enjoy some power over foreign policy
issues. Outside democratic political systems, the legislature enjoys
very little power over foreign policy. In one-party systems like
China, the political party has the last say in this respect. In military
dictatorships, the Legislature, if it is functional, has either no
power over foreign policy, or it just endorses the decision taken by
the military rulers in foreign policy matters without any debate.

The legislature is usually a big debating house, where it is difficult

to actually make the foreign policy. It debates more on foreign
policy than making it. In biparty and multiparty democracies, the
government defends its foreign policy in the legislature, whereas
the opposition either criticizes or gives support to the
government’s foreign policy. The scope for similar debates is
limited in one-party systems. Here, the legislature endorses
decisions already taken by the party. Generally, the Legislature
ratifies bilateral or international treaties and agreements. It also
passes necessary laws and approves pertinent budgetary
allocations for the effective implementation of foreign policy. But
the legislature enjoys, in almost all political systems, a very
important power of allocating money in relation to foreign policy.
Because of this power, in many countries, the lower chambers of
the legislature are nowadays gaining additional strength in foreign
policy issues and consequently exerting more influence in such
matters. For example, the US House of Representatives has now
become more powerful in matters of allocation of money for the
implementation of American foreign policy. The Lok Sabha, the
lower house in the Indian Parliament, is also enjoying more power
over budgetary allocation on foreign policy matters.

The legislature tries to exercise control over foreign policy through

its committee system in several countries. The Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations is a case in point. It can effectively exert its
control over foreign policy through its power of investigation and
hearing. It is believed in the US that the chairman of this
committee is more powerful than the Secretary of State, because
the Secretary is accountable to this committee and can be grilled by
its members. The External Affairs Committee of the Lok Sabha of
India does not enjoy so much power, but it can criticize the foreign
policy and caution the government about any weak or wrong step.

The power of the executive is increasing in every country. The

government tries to control the making of domestic and foreign
policies through the introduction of new laws and ordinances. If
the party in power has a majority in the legislature, this control
becomes easier. As a result, the power of the legislature is
decreasing in almost all countries. It may, therefore, be observed
that except in the United States, the legislatures in other countries
have limited power in matters of foreign policy today.

Interest Groups and Lobbies

The role played by interest groups in the making of foreign policy is

emphasized nowadays. Interest groups like the chamber of
commerce, peasant’s organizations, other professional bodies,
organizations for friendship between two countries (the Indian-
American Friendship Council, for example) may play significant
roles in the making of foreign policy. Although it is true that these
groups play a more prominent role in the US than in other
countries, in an era of globalization, their importance is being
increasingly felt in other countries as well. An example cited below
may illustrate the significance of such groups in the making and
implementation of foreign policy. In May 1998, the US imposed
economic and military sanctions on India and Pakistan for their
nuclear tests. Due to the sanctions, export of wheat from the US to
Pakistan was stopped. As a consequence, the wheat-producing
farmers of America incurred huge losses which amounted to nearly
US $400 million. The farmers’ organizations of the northwest
region—where wheat is produced more—vociferously protested
against this huge loss. They put pressure through their legislators
in the US Congress to waive the provision of sanctions. Giving in to
this pressure, the US Congress passed a law by which export of
agricultural products to South Asian countries commenced again.
This law was known as Agricultural Export Relief Act (AERA). This
incident shows how the US foreign policy was forced to undergo
changes due to the pressures put on it by certain interest groups.

In fact, in several countries, including India, the course of foreign

policy making and implementation can be altered due to the active
intervention of interest groups. There have been improvements in
India-US relations recently. This, according to experts like Robert
M. Hathaway and Dennis Kux, is the outcome of the positive role
played by several interest groups like the American Association of
Physicians of Indian Origin, the Indian American Friendship
Council and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. They
try to influence the US Congress through their representatives, so
that the American Congress passes India-friendly laws. So, the role
of interest groups can never be ignored in foreign policy matters.

In our discussion of the influence of interest groups in foreign

policy, the role of ‘lobby’ deserves special reference. Simply, the
endeavour of the interest groups to influence the legislature and
the government is known as ‘lobbying’. In this sense, lobbying is a
verb. An interest group associated with lobbying may be called a
lobby. In other words, interest groups which try to influence the
legislature and the government are known as lobbies. The India
Caucus in the US House of Representatives is a lobby in this sense.
The main purpose of this lobby is to influence the US Congress to
adopt India-friendly attitude and to make pro-India laws. The
activities of the India Caucus may be called lobbying. Lobbies are
usually very active in the US and West European countries. They
try and successfully influence the making of foreign policy in these
countries.

Public Opinion

The impact of public opinion on foreign policy is not beyond

controversy because public opinion as a concept is ambiguous.
Public opinion refers to the opinion of the people. But the opinion
of all the people can never be the same, and that way, very
cohesive. Is public opinion a concrete and reasonable opinion? The
answer would certainly be negative. Therefore, what is termed as
‘public opinion’ can never be the rational and organized opinion of
all the people. It may be the opinion of only a section of the people
who assume positions of leadership at various levels. In reality,
public opinion is formed and expressed by several groups of
people. Usually, these groups are the political parties and the
pressure or interest groups. They organize and express what is
known as public opinion.
 A common man is more concerned with the domestic policies of a
country than its foreign policy because the former affect their day-
to-day life, with which they are more concerned. In case of foreign
policy, public opinion is formulated and expressed by political
parties and interest groups. The media also creates public opinion,
but the influence of political parties and interest groups in the
formulation of public opinion is perhaps stronger than the media.
As very few citizens are actually concerned with foreign policies,
political leaders and interest groups find it easy to influence public
opinion. Often, the wishes of political leaders are expressed in the
name of public opinion. Citizens are usually concerned about the
protection of their national interests, and political leaders try to
organize public opinion in favour of national interest. Thus,
political parties and interest groups organize and express the latent
desires of the people as public opinion.

Public opinion may become important in case of foreign policy.

Frankel has given a very good example of how public opinion
influences foreign policy. The British Government decided to join
the European common market in 1961 but failed to do so due to
lack of public support. Political parties and interest groups
gradually steered British public opinion in favour of joining the
common market by 1967. The British Government eventually
joined the common market in 1967 with favourable public opinion.
Here, British political parties and interest groups gradually
organized different views of the people into a cohesive and
concrete public opinion. In the modern world, the influence of
public opinion over foreign policy is strongly felt in almost all
countries where political life has attained a certain degree of
maturity and sophistication.

QUESTIONS

1. Analyse the concept of National Interest.

2. Define Diplomacy. Examine the main tasks of diplomacy.
3. Analyse the main functions of diplomats in international relations today.
4. Write notes on open and secret diplomacy.
5. Analyse the notion of economic diplomacy.
6. Examine the future of diplomacy.
7. Define propaganda. What are the major techniques of propaganda?
8. Analyse the significance of the military in the making of foreign policy.
9. Examine the role of the Head of the Government and his Foreign Minister in the making of
foreign policy.
10. Analyse the role of the Legislature in the making of foreign policy.
11. Write a note on the importance of interest groups and lobbies in the making of foreign policy.
12. How does public opinion influence the making of foreign policy?

5
The United Nations

The tragedy of the Second World War created in the minds of the
people a deep resentment against war. Prominent leaders of the
world felt it was necessary to form a world body consisting of all
states to prevent further wars of this magnitude. As early as in
1941, attempts were made to form an international organization.
After several rounds of discussion and negotiation, the United
Nations Organization was finally established in 1945 with fifty-one
member-states. It was, of course, not the first international
organization in the world. After the First World War, a world body
known as the League of Nations was formed in 1919. But it failed to
maintain international peace and harmony due to its structural
and functional weaknesses. The founders of the United Nations
(UN) tried to avoid the mistakes made during the formation of the
League of Nations. The UN, despite its shortcomings, has
remained an effective and quite successful international
organization for more than six decades. This discussion of the UN
starts with the origin of the organization.

THE ORIGIN OF THE UN

The London Declaration of 12 June 1941 could be credited with the

first formal attempt at creating the UN when all the nations
fighting against Hitler announced their intention to create a world
free of wars, and based on social and economic equality. This
declaration was soon followed by the Atlantic Charter of 14 August
1941, which stressed upon the need for establishing an
international body designed to maintain peace and security in the
world. On 1 January 1942, the anti-Axis coalition, then comprising
twenty-six countries, met in Washington DC to affirm the Atlantic
Charter. It was there that US President Franklin Roosevelt coined
the term ‘United Nations’ to indicate the unity of the allied powers
to fight against a common enemy. However, the Washington
Declaration also stressed on the need to unite for peace and to
move forward in that direction.

The next significant step in the formation of the UN was taken on

30 October 1943, when Britain, the United States, China and the
Soviet Union announced in Moscow that they sincerely recognized
the need to create, at the earliest feasible date, a general
international organization, based on the principle of sovereign
equality of all peace-loving states. This pledge in Moscow was soon
followed by the Tehran Declaration of 1 December 1943, which
sought the cooperation and active participation of all nations, large
and small, to create a family of democratic states. A Great Power
Conference was convened by the United States in 1944 at
Dumbarton Oaks near Washington DC, which lasted for nearly
three months, from August to October. After much discussion and
negotiation, the Dumbarton Oaks Conference prepared a Draft of
the Charter of the United Nations. During late 1944 and early 1945,
this Draft Charter was discussed, debated and amended in a few
more international conferences in Washington DC and Yalta.
These conferences elaborately discussed the proposed structures
and functions of the new international organization. The draft
charter of the UN was finally signed by fifty-one states on 26 June
1945 in San Francisco, USA. After ratification by the signatory
states’ parliaments, as provided by Article 110 of the charter, the
United Nations Organization, a world body designed to maintain
international peace and security, was established on 25 October
1945.

Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter clearly elaborated the purposes

and principles of the United Nations. Article 1 says:

The purposes of the United Nations are: 1. to

maintain international peace and security, and to
that end: to take effective collective measures for
the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.
… 2. To develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples and to take other
 appropriate measures to strengthen universal
peace.
Article 2 says:

The organization is based on the principle of the

sovereign equality of all its members.…
It further points out:

All members shall refrain in their international

relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations.
The purposes and principles of the UN are best maintained
through the activities of different organs of this international
organization. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the functions of
the important organs of the United Nations.

IMPORTANT ORGANS OF THE UN

The General Assembly

Composition and Voting

Chapter IV of the UN Charter elaborates in detail the composition

and functions of the General Assembly (GA), one of the most
important organs of the UN system. Articles 9 to 22 therein
contain details about the GA—its structure, activities, voting
methods and procedures for convening sessions. Article 9 begins
with the composition of the GA. It says, ‘The General Assembly
shall consist of all the members of the United Nations.’ In 2009,
the UN had 192 member-states. So, the General Assembly also had
as much members. Each member-state can send a maximum of
five representatives to the Assembly but cast only one vote. The GA
could have a maximum of 960 (192 × 5) individuals attending its
sessions, but a maximum of 192 votes. According to Article 18 of
the charter, ‘Decisions of the General Assembly on important
questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members
present and voting.’ The charter also outlined the ‘important
questions’ on which decisions of the Assembly require a two-third
majority of the members present and voting. These questions are:
(1) recommendations with respect to the maintenance of
international peace and security; (2) the election of the non-
permanent members of the Security Council; (3) the election of the
members of the Economic and Social Council; (4) the admission of
new members to the UN; (5) the suspension of the rights and
privileges of membership; (6) the expulsion of members; (7)
questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system; and
(8) budgetary questions. According to provisions of the charter,
decisions on other questions shall be made by a simple majority of
members present and voting. The General Assembly, as per Article
21 of the charter, ‘shall adopt its own rules of procedure. It shall
elect its President for each session’. Nowadays, the regular session
of the GA begins in the third week of September, under the charge
of the President of the previous session. The first task of a new
Assembly is to elect its own President to assume the Chair for the
next twelve months. No President of the General Assembly can
represent any big power. A new Assembly also elects several vice-
presidents and some chairmen for the standing committees. The
regular annual session of the Assembly is held in New York. As per
Article 20 of the charter, special sessions of the assembly may be
convened by the Secretary-General at the request of the Security
Council or a majority of the members of the UN.
Major Functions of the General Assembly

Discussion and debate The General Assembly is best known for

its discussions and debates. It is considered to be the biggest and
most important of all international platforms, where different
countries across the world can exchange views. H. G. Nicholas calls
it ‘a talking shop’, as it discusses and debates almost all events
happening in the world. But, it does so under the authority of the
charter, as Part 2 of Article 11 confirms: ‘The General Assembly
may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of
international peace and security.… Any such question on which
action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the
General Assembly’. Any issue that has the potential to disturb
world peace and security may be taken up for discussion and
debate by the Assembly. This provision indicates that the Assembly
may discuss anything under the sun. It also performs the duty of
referring actions to the Security Council. For such reference,
debates are necessary, and that is why debates constitute an
integral part of the overall functions of the Assembly. Over the
years, some very constructive debates on issues like international
peace and security, disarmament, nuclear proliferation,
cooperation, ecological questions, and socio-economic matters had
taken place in the Assembly. Viewed from a different angle, such
debates have great educational and informative values. Attention
of the people is drawn to several important issues affecting the
world through these debates.

Legislative functions A second important function of the

General Assembly is the codification and development of
international law. This function, according to Nicholas, brings the
GA nearest to the law-making activities of a national legislature.
This is why this Assembly is often called a quasi-legislature.
According to Article 13 of the charter, ‘encouraging the progressive
development of international law and its codification’ constitutes
an important legal activity of the GA. Article 13 further empowers
the Assembly to make recommendations for the ‘realization of
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction
as to race, sex, language or religion’. From the initial years of the
UN, the General Assembly has been very active in performing its
quasilegal functions. It established the International Law
Commission in 1948 to codify international law. The same year, it
also passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to set a
general guideline for the protection of human rights all over the
world. In 1965, it adopted a resolution on the elimination of all
forms of racial discrimination. It further signed two contracts on
human rights in 1966. All such endeavours show the degree of
involvement of the General Assembly to protect the basic rights
and fundamental freedoms of the people anywhere across the
world, through appropriate legal measures.

Political functions The General Assembly performs some

political functions as well. Initially, the framers of the charter did
not want to make the Assembly a politically active organ. The
political functions of the UN were then largely assigned to the
Security Council. The GA was seen as a ‘deliberative organ’ that
could only discuss, debate, review and criticize. But it gradually
came to gain a lot of importance, mainly because of the
shortcomings of the Security Council in performing the duties
entrusted to it. The GA passed the Uniting for Peace Resolution in
1950, during the Korean War. It contained a provision that the
General Assembly can meet in twenty-four hours if the Security
Council is prevented by the veto from exercising its primary
responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. This
resolution empowered the Assembly to take important political
decisions bypassing the Security Council. Equipped with this
resolution, the Assembly pushed itself into the field of political
activities which the charter intended to reserve for the council.
Although the Assembly failed in sustaining its ‘supremacy’
achieved through the resolution in the later years, it nevertheless
started dabbling in the political affairs of the UN after the Uniting
for Peace Resolution was passed.

Other important political functions of the General Assembly

include peaceful and legally justified political settlement and
peaceful political change by promoting new international order.
The creation of Israel may be cited as a pertinent example. H. G.
Nicholas thinks that the General Assembly has shown notable
inventiveness and flexibility in carrying out its political functions.
According to him, ‘… if the test of the vitality of a political
institution is its ability to devise new instruments to assist in its
tasks, the Assembly comes out well.’ (Nicholas 1975: 125).

Elective functions The Assembly shares some important elective

functions with the Security Council. It, along with the council, can
elect the Secretary-General, the judges of the International Court
of Justice, and admit new members to the UN. It can also elect 10
non-permanent members of the Security Council and fifty-four
members of the Economic and Social Council. In both the cases,
principles of ‘geographical equality’ are maintained. The Assembly
also elects members of the Trusteeship Council.

Supervisory functions The General Assembly controls and

supervises the activities of almost all other organs of the UN. It is
to the Assembly that the Security Council, the Economic and Social
Council and the Trusteeship Council submit their reports. The
Assembly also controls the Secretariat. The Secretariat has to
submit periodic reports of its activities to the Assembly. The
Assembly shares a symbiotic relationship with the Secretary-
General. According to Nicholas, ‘the Secretary-General, though in a
true sense the servant of the Assembly, may also be its conscience
and guide.’ This supervisory authority has made the Assembly one
of the most significant organs of the United Nations.

Miscellaneous functions The Assembly has several other

functions which may be together called the miscellaneous
functions. It scrutinizes and passes the budget of the UN, fixes
rates of subscription for member-states, and discusses budgets of
the specialized agencies. It has a role in the amendment of the UN
Charter as well. The charter can be amended with the consent of a
two-thirds majority of members of the General Assembly along
with the approval of all five permanent members of the Security
Council. Therefore, any major reform proposal of the UN requires
the support of a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.

These functions, as mentioned above, empower the General

Assembly to enjoy, along with the Security Council, a very
prominent position in the UN system.
Evaluation of the Role of the General Assembly

The framers of the UN Charter wanted to make the Security

Council the prime organ of the United Nations. But due to
structural weaknesses, revealed starkly during the Cold War, the
Security Council failed to live up to the expectations of the
founders of the UN. For instance, the concept of ‘great-power
unanimity’, sought to be achieved through permanent membership
of the council, could not materialize due to rivalry between the two
superpowers during the war. As a consequence, the concept of
collective security (discussed in detail later in this chapter), to be
achieved under the guidance of the council, also failed. This
structural weakness of the council helped the General Assembly to
usurp some powers of the council as revealed by the Uniting for
Peace Resolution. The Assembly, unlike the council, is a truly
representative organ of the UN. All members of the UN are
members of the Assembly. The Assembly has thus become a
significant platform for discussion, debate and negotiation. The
member-states take it as their very own organ, where they can
express their grievances and make their voices heard. More and
more states, particularly those of the ‘developing’ world, are
making frequent use of the Assembly as their international
platform for effective diplomacy. This reliance of the member-
states on the Assembly has significantly enhanced its activities and
responsibilities. It is true that, on many occasions, the Assembly
had failed to meet its responsibilities and surrendered the
advantages it had gained through the Uniting for Peace Resolution.
It is frequently accused of being a cumbersome and garrulous
body, with little effective power to keep its promises. It also
requires some reforms (the reform proposals of the UN would be
analysed in detail later in this chapter). But the deliberative and
recommending functions of the Assembly are quite important.
Because of them, the Assembly gets all the desired attention of the
member-states, other organs of the UN, and, broadly speaking, of
the whole world. These functions help the Assembly to fulfill the
primary responsibility of the UN—maintenance of international
peace and security—and in realizing the expectations of its
members of becoming a part of world diplomacy.

The Security Council

Composition

The Security Council, a very important organ of the UN for

maintaining international peace and security, has a very limited
membership, unlike the General Assembly. Article 23 of the
Charter elaborately states the composition of the Security Council.
According to this Article, the council shall consist of fifteen
members—five permanent and ten non-permanent. In the original
charter, the limit of membership of the council was set at eleven,
with five permanent and six nonpermanent members. But the
provisions were amended in 1965 and the number of non-
permanent members was raised from six to ten. So, the council
now has fifteen members. Currently, the permanent members of
the Security Council are the United States of America, Russia (it
had taken the place of the former Soviet Union), Britain, France
and People’s Republic of China. The concept of big powers
assuming permanent membership of the council was created by
the founders of the UN to achieve big-power unanimity, which they
thought would help adequately in maintaining international peace
and security. The ten non-permanent members of the council are
elected for a term of two years, on the basis of equitable
geographical distribution. None of them is re-elected immediately
after the expiry of its two-year term. Each member-state of the
Security Council shall have one representative and one vote. The
council, according to the charter, holds periodic meetings, as and
when necessary.
Voting

The system of voting in the Security Council, though controversial,

needs a special mention. Article 27 of the Charter deals with voting
in the council. It says that each member of the Security Council
shall have one vote, and decisions of the council on procedural
matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members. Part
3 of Article 27 is very important in this context. It states: ‘Decisions
of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an
affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of
the permanent members.’ The word ‘concurring’ is extremely
important as it means that if any permanent member of the council
opposes any proposed resolution, the resolution shall be discarded.
In other words, no proposed resolution of the Security Council
shall be passed if it is opposed by any permanent member. This
power of the permanent members to nullify a proposed resolution
of the council is known as Veto Power. Although created by the
founders to achieve great-power unanimity, it had nevertheless
become very controversial during the Cold War.
Major Functions of the Security Council

Maintenance of international peace and security The

Security Council has been entrusted by the Charter with the
primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and
security. Article 24(1) of the charter declares: ‘In order to ensure
prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members
confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security.’ For this purpose,
a Military Staff Committee of the UN is placed under the control of
the Security Council, although use of military power would be the
last resort of the council and the UN. The council would try for
peaceful settlement of disputes without the use of military power.
For this end, the charter elaborately laid down provisions for
 Pacific Settlement of Disputes. A brief discussion on the different
mechanisms for maintaining peace follows.
1. Pacific settlement of disputes: Chapter VI of the UN Charter endows all powers to the Security
Council to go for pacific settlement of disputes between or among rival states. Settlement of disputes is to be
primarily achieved through negotiation and conciliation. Article 33 of the charter says:

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of

which is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security, shall, first
of all, seek a solution by negotiation,
enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,
judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful
means of their own choice. The Security
Council shall, when it deems necessary, call
upon the parties to settle their disputes by
such means.
2.
Clearly, the emphasis is on peaceful settlement of all disputes, as
articles 34 to 38 also refer to such a mechanism for the
maintenance of international peace and security.
3.
4. Power of action in cases of threats to peace: If efforts for pacific settlement of disputes fail, the
Security Council can act accordingly to restore peace. Chapter VII of the charter (articles 39 to 51) is full of
appropriate methods of ‘actions’ of the council. Article 39 is very clear in this matter. It says: ‘The Security
Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression
and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore
international peace and security.’ But the council shall explore all other possible measures to deter threats
to international peace before taking military actions. Articles 41 and 42 indicate to such measures. Article 41
states: ‘The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed forces are to be
employed to give effect to its decisions … These may include complete or partial interruption of economic
relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the
severance of diplomatic relations.’ If all these measures prove to be inadequate in restoring peace, the
council shall resort to military action, as per provisions of the charter, against the offender. For this
purpose, all the members of the UN are requested by Article 43 of the charter to provide the Security
Council with armed forces and the rights of passage. As per Article 46, ‘Plans for the application of armed
forces shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee’. The
Security Council had to approve military actions for breach of international peace on several occasions in
the recent past.
5. Power to work for disarmament: Universal disarmament is a necessary condition to maintain
international peace. The UN Charter gave the Security Council powers to exercise regulation of armaments.
Article 26 empowered the council to work for the regulation of arms globally. The Security Council shall
exercise these powers with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee, as per provisions of this article.
 The framers of the charter gave this power to the council to stop arms race that could disturb international
peace and security.
6. Power relating to ‘strategic areas’: The Security Council has been empowered by the charter to
supervise the strategic areas as part of its function to maintain international peace and security. The
strategic areas fall under the Trusteeship System of the UN as provided by Chapter XII of the UN Charter.
Article 83 says, ‘All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the
terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the Security
Council.’

Elective functions The council shares some elective functions

with the General Assembly. Along with the Assembly, it elects new
members to the UN, the Secretary-General of the organization, and
judges of the International Court of Justice. It sends its
recommendations to the General Assembly on these matters.

On the whole, the Security Council has been vested with enormous
powers by the UN Charter to act in relation to its responsibilities as
laid down in its chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII.
Evaluation of the Role of the Security Council

The founders of the UN wanted to make the Security Council the

strongest of all UN organs. But the council could not fulfill the
hopes of its mentors. Several structural and functional weaknesses
are responsible for a largely ineffective council. To begin with the
structural problems, the limited membership of the council had
come under criticism. In an organization that has currently 192
member-states, the council involves only fifteen countries as its
members, and they take all crucial decisions on issues relating to
international peace and security. The decisions of the Security
Council are, therefore, never the decisions of the majority of
countries of the UN. Moreover, the concept of permanent
membership to achieve great-power unity did not work at all due to
Cold War politics. As a consequence, the council could not function
as per expectations. Some of the great powers, identified six
decades ago, at the time of the establishment of the UN, no longer
enjoy that status in a new international order. Britain and France
may fall into this category. Some other nations have become
contestants in the great-power category. Germany, Japan, Italy,
India, Brazil and South Africa, to name a few, have put forward
their claims to be included as permanent members in a reformed
council. Further, there is a strong view that permanent
membership and veto powers are responsible for a crippled
Security Council and they should be done away with. In an
enlarged council with more members, no permanent membership
should be allowed. However, there would be points and
counterpoints on these issues, as they are controversial (these
issues are analysed in detail under ‘Reform Proposals’ later in this
chapter), but one point is accepted by all—the council certainly has
structural weaknesses.

Functional weaknesses of the council stem from its structural

inadequacy. The veto power of the permanent members, conceived
originally to secure great-power unanimity, boomeranged during
the Cold War, when neither the USA nor the Soviet Union could
agree on major international issues. As a consequence, veto power
was frequently used by the two super powers and the council
remained crippled. After the end of the Cold War, it is alleged from
different quarters, the USA has been using the council to serve its
own interests in a new unipolar world order. The Security Council,
therefore, always became a pawn in the power game of influential
nations of the world. This made the council ineffective, as its
potentials could never be realized. H. G. Nicholas had rightly
pointed out that ‘of all the organs of the UN none has shown a
greater discrepancy between promise and performance than the
Security Council’.

The Economic and Social Council

Composition

It is not possible to maintain international peace and security

without economic and social development of different parts of the
world. The founders of the UN realized this very truth, and
therefore created the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) with
a view to secure socioeconomic development of the world. Chapter
X of the UN Charter deals with the composition, functions and
powers of the ECOSOC. Article 61(1) of the Charter says: ‘The
Economic and Social Council shall consist of fifty-four members of
the United Nations elected by the General Assembly.’ Initially, the
ECOSOC had eighteen members. The membership was
subsequently raised to twenty-seven, and in 1973 it was further
raised to fifty-four. Eighteen members of the ECOSOC are elected
each year for a term of three years. A retiring member is eligible for
immediate re-election. The principle of equitable geographical
distribution is followed in electing members to the council.
According to Article 61(4) of the Charter, each member of the
ECOSOC shall have one representative. Every member has one
vote. As per Article 67 of the Charter, decisions of the ECOSOC
shall be made by the majority of members present and voting.

The ECOSOC has two sessions every year—the first is held in New
York during April-May, and the second in Geneva in October or
November. Like the General Assembly, a President is elected for
the year from a member-state which is not a great-power.
Decisions of the council are taken on the basis of a bare majority of
members present and voting.
Functions and Powers of the ECOSOC

The ECOSOC may make or initiate studies and reports with respect
to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and
related matters. It may also make recommendations with respect
to any such matters to the General Assembly and to the various
specialized agencies. Article 68 of the Charter empowers the
council to set up commissions in economic and social fields. The
primary responsibility of the ECOSOC is to work for the
development of economic, social, educational and cultural progress
of the world. The council works in these fields, in collaboration
with various specialized agencies. The ECOSOC, according to
Article 63, can enter into agreements with any of the specialized
agencies referred to in Article 57, as also coordinate the activities of
the specialized agencies. Articles 57, 58, and 63 of the UN Charter
gave the council the first of its duties, that of bringing the various
specialized agencies into ‘relationship with the UN’ and
coordinating their activities.

Specialized agencies working within the ambit of the ECOSOC

cover a wide range of economic, social, cultural, health,
educational and many other activities. Prominent among these
agencies are the following: United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO), Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO), International Monetary Fund
(IMF), International Labour Organization (ILO), International
Development Association (IDA), International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
The activities performed by these agencies are highly
commendable and valuable. Nicholas correctly observes that ‘the
scale of their operations is impressive’. Because of the noteworthy
performance of these specialized agencies, ECOSOC has earned a
good name among different organs of the United Nations.

Apart from the specialized agencies, several important functions of

the ECOSOC are performed through special and regional
commissions. The activities of these commissions could be
ascertained from their names. The six special commissions of the
ECOSOC are: (1) Statistical Commission; (2) Population
Commission; (3) Commission for Social Development; (4)
Commission on Human Rights and Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities; (5)
Commission on the Status of Women; and (6) Commission on
Narcotic Drugs. The four regional commissions are: (1) Economic
Commission for Europe; (2) Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific (formerly known as the Economic Commission
for Asia and the Far East); (3) Economic Commission for Latin
America; and (4) Economic Commission for Africa. All these
regional commissions have been working successfully for the
economic and social development in their respective areas.

Article 71 of the UN Charter vests the ECOSOC with the power to

cooperate with the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for
socio-economic progress of countries across the world. It says: ‘The
Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for
consultation with non-governmental organizations which are
concerned with matters within its competence.’ For effective
cooperation with the NGOs, the ECOSOC has a Committee on
Non-Governmental Organizations. This thirteen-member
committee is the council’s main body to cooperate with over a
thousand NGOs worldwide, working in different areas related to
the council’s objectives and aims. The ECOSOC may call, in
accordance with the rules prescribed by the UN, international
conferences on matters falling within its purview.
Evaluation of the Role of the ECOSOC
The ECOSOC is one of the most active of all UN organs. The
contribution of the council towards social, economic and cultural
development of the world is significant. The humanitarian and
peace-loving ideals of the UN have been reflected more through the
activities of the ECOSOC than through those of any other UN
organ. But the council has certain limitations as well. Several
scholars have pointed out that it is difficult for an organization
with such vast networks of specialized agencies and commissions
to properly coordinate among different bodies and function
effectively. A good deal of the council’s time is spent in supervising
the works of the specialized agencies and in collecting information.
It works in a cumbersome manner. It is also alleged that the
council is at the mercy of the rich nations, as they dominate some
of its important specialized agencies.

The council has probably been endowed with more duties than it
can handle. It has to look after economic, social, cultural,
educational, ecological, humanitarian, health, and several other
issues. Its list of activities would be very long. It works mainly
through its commissions and specialized agencies. The activities of
the agencies need to be coordinated by the council, which actually
has limited effective control over them. As a consequence, the
council shows lack of confidence in its dealing with them and is not
equally successful in its different activities—it is very effective in
some areas, but less accomplished in others. According to H. G.
Nicholas, the ECOSOC is ‘perhaps better on its economic than on
its social side, better at a regional than at a global level, better …
when there is a universally recognized need to be filled than when
there are priorities to be determined in the allocation of scarce …
resources’. The success of the council is sometimes overshadowed
by its limitations. The council, like other UN organs, requires
effective reforms for more efficient operation.

The Secretariat

Composition

The United Nations is a very big organization with numerous

departments, offices and staff. The Secretariat has been created by
the UN Charter to coordinate and control the activities of all UN
departments, offices and personnel. Situated in New York, the
Secretariat is the centre of all UN activities. Chapter XV of the UN
Charter outlines the composition and functions of the Secretariat.
Article 97 of the Charter says: ‘The Secretariat shall comprise a
Secretary-General and such staff as the organization may require.’
The staff shall be appointed from different countries of the world.
The principle of equitable geographical distribution is followed in
the recruitment of personnel to the Secretariat. Article 101(1) of the
Charter declares that the staff shall be appointed by the Secretary-
General under regulations established by the General Assembly.
Article 101(3) says that ‘highest standards of efficiency,
competence and integrity’ shall be maintained for selecting staff to
the Secretariat. The staff shall not receive instructions from any
authority external to the organization.
Powers and Functions of the Secretariat

The UN Secretariat is truly a polyglot organization. It performs

numerous activities to keep the UN system in order. To begin with,
it provides services similar to the ‘office’ of a polyglot Parliament.
It explains and translates all the proceedings, resolutions,
documents, minutes and information of the United Nations. It also
provides library services and important legal and procedural
assistance to different bodies and specialized agencies of the UN.
Nearly half of its staff is engaged in this stupendous ‘Parliament-
type’ activity of the Secretariat. Interpretation and translation of all
proceedings of the UN is indeed a huge task that the Secretariat
has to perform. This task is also very important to keep the
members—as also the non-members—of the UN informed about
the activities of the organization. The Secretariat is also
responsible for the publication of various resolutions and debates
in the official journal of the United Nations, and for conducting of
scientific and other research related to the activities of the UN.

Another important function of the Secretariat is to gather

information on different issues of global importance and providing
them to UN bodies and members. This function is slightly different
from the ones noted above and constitutes an important segment
of the activities of the Secretariat. According to Nicholas, ‘the
collection, ordering and providing of information at the points
where it is more needed and can produce its greatest effect, is one
of the most important services that UN officials discharge.’ Several
UN organs, agencies, commissions and members are immensely
benefited by this service.

The Secretariat is also known as the International Civil Service, as

it extends some executive assistance to the UN. Prominent among
them are technical assistance and pre-investment aid to developing
countries. Introduced as a small operation in 1945, the technical
assistance programme grew over the years into a sizeable scheme
for providing expert advice and help to the developing countries.
The Secretariat performs a quasi-executive function through the
UN Field Service, which is an unarmed force that provides
transport, maintains communication and looks after the security
for UN commissions in the field.

An important function of the Secretariat is administering the

administrators. As international civil servants, the UN bureaucracy
must learn to rise above national interests. At the same time, they
must know the art of maintaining effective liaison with member-
nations, that include their native countries as well. In their
activities, they must not show any bias towards their own
countries. The administrators of the UN must be given proper
instructions to adjust to their new roles at the UN, and also given
necessary training. The Secretariat performs these tasks.

The UN Secretariat remains in constant touch with the Foreign

Affairs Department of both the member- and non-member states.
It takes opinions and suggestions from them, analyses these inputs
and uses the results thus obtained as raw materials in the crucial
decision-making process of the organization. Considering the
complexities involved in this diplomatic as well as political
function, it may be considered as one of the most important tasks
of the UN Secretariat. In order to control and run an organization
as big and as cumbersome as the United Nations, the Secretariat
has to perform different kinds of functions—some much known,
some not, some very important, others not so much.

The Secretary-General

The Secretary-General (SG) plays a major role in the functioning of

the UN Secretariat, and is also the most important person in the
UN machinery. Article 97 of the UN Charter describes him as the
‘chief administrative officer of the organization’. He is the pivot
round whom all activities of the United Nations revolve.
Appointment of the Secretary-General

Article 97 of the Charter also deals with the appointment of the

Secretary-General. It states: ‘The Secretary-General shall be
appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of
the Security Council.’ All the five permanent members of the
Security Council must agree on a name before recommending it to
the General Assembly for possible consideration for the post of the
Secretary-General. After such a name has been recommended by
the Security Council, the General Assembly meets and approves
the name, sometimes through voting, if required. The SG is
normally appointed for a term of five years, though the Charter has
no mention of his tenure in office. They usually get a second term.
No citizen of the five permanent members of the Security Council
can become the SG. The present SG of the UN—the eighth in this
position— is Ban Ki-moon of South Korea. He assumed office on 1
January 2007. Table 5.1 shows a list of secretaries-general of the
United Nations.

Table 5.1: Secretaries-General of the United Nations

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wili/Secretary-
General_of_the_United_Nations/.
Functions of the Secretary-General

As the Chief Administrative Officer of the UN, the Secretary-

General has to perform many functions. For a comprehensive
analysis, his major activities may be divided into these categories:
political, administrative, financial and representative.
Political functions The Secretary-General plays a major role in
keeping the UN promise of maintaining international peace and
security. It is his primary responsibility to see that world peace and
security is not threatened. Article 99 of the Charter allows him to
bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in
his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace
and security. It has been observed in the past that during times of
political crises, UN secretaries-general tried their best to mitigate
tension and restore a peaceful atmosphere. The Korean War, the
Congo Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Suez Crisis, and the more
recent Iraq and Afghanistan crises were sincerely handled by the
respective secretary-general. They might not always have
succeeded in diffusing the crises due to internal political
differences (big-power rivalry within the UN), but their degree of
involvement and commitment to restore peace were much
praiseworthy. Under different secretaries-general, the UN
performed extremely laudable works to fight the menace of
colonialism, terrorism and racism. The office of the UN Secretary-
General has always been sincerely involved in establishing
democracy, right to self-determination, freedom, liberty,
education, and human rights all over the world. In carrying out
their political functions, secretaries-general face a lot of obstacles.
They have to manoeuvre through opposing political interests of
states, disinclination to solve problems, red-tapism, and, above all,
resource crunch. Despite limitations, secretaries-general have
always remained much committed to their political duties assigned
to them by the UN Charter.

Administrative functions The Secretary-General has to carry

out a great deal of administrative functions. The general
administration of the UN and the supervision of all its major
organs have been entrusted to him. Article 98 of the Charter clearly
states that ‘the Secretary General shall act in that capacity in all
meetings of the General Assembly, of the Security Council, of the
Economic and Social Council, and of the Trusteeship Council, and
shall perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by these
organs. The Secretary General shall make an annual report to the
General Assembly on the work of the organization’. He also keeps
in touch with different organs, subsidiary agencies and member-
states, but he does not seek or receive instructions from any
government. According to Article 100 of the Charter, ‘each member
of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively
international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary
General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the
discharge of their responsibilities’. Therefore, the Secretary-
General has full autonomy to discharge his administrative
functions.

Financial functions The Secretary-General has significant

financial responsibilities. He prepares the UN budget, allocates
money to different departments and collects subscriptions from
the member-states. He places the budget of the United Nations in a
special session of the General Assembly. He may also consider
giving financial aid to underdeveloped countries. Without the
approval of the SG, no money can be spent by any organ of the
United Nations.

Representative functions The Secretary-General is the chief

representative and the chief spokesman of the UN. He represents
the organization at various international forums, participate in
important deliberations with different countries across the world.
He serves as the main link between the UN and the rest of the
world.

Appointing functions The Secretary-General is an important

appointing authority of the United Nations. He appoints the higher
officials of the Secretariat and supervise their activities. He enjoys
this authority on the basis of Article 101 of the Charter: ‘The staff
shall be appointed by the Secretary-General under regulations
established by the General Assembly.’ As the Chief Administrative
Officer of the United Nations, it is his responsibility to see that the
staff of the organization are properly appointed.
A Brief Evaluation of the Role of the Secretary-General

The post of the Secretary-General is extremely important in the

entire UN system. He is given a status equivalent to that of a
member-state and enjoys, as the report of the Preparatory
Commission says, ‘a quite special right which goes beyond any
power previously accorded to the head of an international
organization’. A lot of expectations are naturally put on a person
who holds such an important post. But have the secretaries-general
lived up to such expectations? Critics allege that their activities are
influenced by powerful groups of countries within the UN. It
becomes very difficult for them to act independently, bypassing
group politics and red-tapism within and outside the organization.
Consequently, they find it almost impossible to exert their views
and get work done according to their wishes and plans. This proves
to be an obstacle in their playing an effective role in the
maintenance of international peace and security. However, it
would be pertinent to point out that different secretaries-general
have shown a marked desire to rise above group politics and work
sincerely for the promotion of international peace and security. For
instance, Secretary-General U. Thant played a very constructive
role in diffusing the Congo crisis, despite group politics within the
organization. Similarly, Kofi Annan tried heart and soul to solve
the Iraq and Afghan crises in recent times. Like other heads of
important international organizations, the success of the
Secretary-General also depends on his personality, his skills for
negotiation, his manoeuvering ability, and, of course, on his
contacts with important members of the organization.

International Court of Justice (The World Court)

Composition

The Charter of the UN makes no mention of the composition of the

International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has been renamed the
World Court. But the statutes of the court say that it shall consist of
fifteen judges, who are to be appointed for a period of nine years.
Five judges are to be appointed every three years. Ad hoc judges
may be added to the list of fifteen, if any party (state) in a case does
not have one of its citizens as a judge. It may be mentioned here
that only states—and not individuals or groups—can be a party to
any case in the World Court. It is customary for every permanent
member of the Security Council to have at least one judge from its
country. The judges are appointed by the General Assembly on the
recommendation of the Security Council. There is no fixed
qualification for the appointment of judges. To be considered for
appointment as a judge, a person must be an expert in
international law; should be eligible for appointment to the highest
national court; should possess a morally sound character; and
should be a jurist of international repute. The salary and allowance
of the judges are decided by the General Assembly. After their
appointment, the judges cannot take up any political or
administrative posts. The court sits in The Hague, Netherlands.
Functions of the Court

The jurisdiction of the court may be of three kinds—arbitrary,

compulsory and advisory. Arbitrary jurisdiction prevents the court
from bringing any dispute within its purview without the consent
of the disputed parties. No state is bound to bring any dispute to
the court. The compulsory jurisdiction of the court covers all
subjects included in the Charter of the UN, different clauses of
international treaties and contracts, and fixation of penalties for
violating international laws and customs. By its advisory
jurisdiction, the court may give advice to different organs of the
UN. Article 96 of the Charter says: ‘The General Assembly or the
Security Council may request the court to give an advisory opinion
on any legal question.’ Other organs of the UN and specialized
agencies may also seek advisory opinion of the court on legal
questions.

Many member-states of the UN signed the ‘optional clause’ of the

court whereby they agreed to use the court for certain types of
cases. The contexts for such cases may be the following: (1) the
meaning of treaty clauses; (2) all matters concerned with the field
of international law; (3) the existence of any fact which, if
established, would constitute a breach of international obligation;
and (4) the nature or extent of the payment that must be made for
breaking an international agreement or obligation. This ‘optional
clause’ is known as compulsory jurisdiction of the court, as
discussed earlier.

In deciding its cases, the court applies: (1) international

conventions, whether general or particular; (2) international
customs; (3) general principles of law recognized by civilized
nations; and (4) judicial decisions and teachings of the qualified
publicists of different nations all over the world.
An Evaluation of the World Court
The World Court has so far been successful in deciding many cases.
Some of the notable cases are the dispute between American
nationals and the citizens of Morocco, the case regarding the
nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and the dispute
between Portugal and India. The World Court achieved remarkable
success in 1992, when it settled a complex border dispute between
El Salvador and Honduras, that existed since 1961 and led to many
clashes and a major war in 1969. The court’s verdict to split
territories and common water bodies was accepted by both the
disputing countries. This verdict led to the major success story of
the court in recent years. However, there are instances of failures
as well. In several cases, the court’s decisions were rejected by
member-states. For example, Albania rejected the verdict of the
court when it held Albania responsible for damaging a British ship.
In 1979, Iran refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court over its
seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. Critics allege that the court’s
decisions are not always impartial, that judges often favour the
countries they represent. Moreover, decisions are influenced by
international politics. As Nicholas observes, ‘If it gets too much
involved in what are essentially political quarrels, the court might
run the risk of appearing merely as the guardian instrument of the
General Assembly.’

A major weakness of the World Court is that its decisions are

seldom accepted by the member-states. Although all the members
have signed the treaty that formed the court, only about one-third
of them have signed the ‘optional clause’ in the treaty agreeing to
give the court jurisdiction in certain areas. Among those who
signed the ‘optional clause’, many tend to ignore its provisions if
they contradict national interests. The United States withdrew
from the ‘optional clause’ in 1986 when it was sued by Nicaragua,
alleging CIA’s (Central Intelligence Agency) involvement in the
internal affairs of Nicaragua. Therefore, international political
issues certainly affect the functions of the World Court.

COLLECTIVE SECURITY

The Concept and Its Application

The concept of ‘collective security’ refers to a situation where the

security of a nation is the collective concern of all other nations.
Although it sounds idealistic, the concept was first introduced in
international relations by the League of Nations, established in
1920. Article 16 of the League Covenant declared that states
engaged in an act of aggression shall ‘ipso facto be deemed to have
committed an act of war against all other Members of the League’.
By the provisions of the Covenant, all members of the League were
required to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions, and, if the
Council of the League permitted, military actions against the
aggressor. The United Nations, established after the Second World
War, also retained the concept of collective security. Chapter VII of
the UN Charter empowers the UN Security Council to initiate
collective military action against an aggressor and help the
aggressed nation. For maintaining international peace and
security, an aggressor must be repelled by all members of the UN.
According to Morgenthau, ‘one for all and all for one’ is the key
phrase for collective security.

Although the UN retained the League’s idea of collective security, it

did not place extreme reliance on this idea as the sole mechanism
to maintain international peace and security. It’s Charter also
allowed member-states to retain their sovereign rights to
individual or collective defence in collaboration with other
alliances outside the UN. The Charter does not prevent a state from
helping itself when collective security measures taken by the
Security Council are ineffective. As a sovereign country, every
nation has the fundamental right to its own security. Moreover, the
UN would also depend on ‘preventive diplomacy’, which seeks to
prevent the outbreak of hostilities among nations in the first place.
Preventive diplomacy has an edge over collective security because
if the former is successful, the latter is not required. The UN thus
has several provisions to maintain international peace, besides
collective security.

Collective security was applied by the UN for the first time during
the Korean War (1950-53). But the experience was not a good one
for the UN. Although North Korea attacked South Korea on 25
June 1950, Cold War political calculations prevented having a
consensus in the UN about the identification of the aggressor. The
US and its allies identified North Korea as the aggressor and called
for severe military actions, but Soviet Union and its allies were not
of the same opinion. China joined the war for North Korea, making
the situation more complex and worse. However, the Security
Council was still able to apply collective security provisions against
North Korea only because Soviet Union temporarily absented itself
from the council and could not veto the resolution (on collective
security) of the council. But when Soviet Union returned to the
council, the onus of collective security was on the General
Assembly. Rising to the occasion, the General Assembly passed the
Uniting for Peace Resolution in November 1950.

Although the Security Council applied collective security measures

against North Korea—the aggressor in this case—not all members
of the UN contributed military force for this collective action. As
Morgenthau noted, ‘South Korea, the country immediately
concerned, and the United States provided about 90 per cent of the
armed forces that fought in Korea’. While China, a great power,
joined the war for the ‘aggressor’, several other states with
significant military capabilities remained non-committal. The
avowed purpose of collective security—repelling the ‘aggressor’ and
restoring normalcy—could not, therefore, be achieved in the
Korean War. The mechanism of collective security failed its first
real test in the Korean War, and has never been applied ever since.

Limitations of Collective Security

The Korean War starkly exposed the limitations of collective

security as a mechanism for restoring and maintaining peace. The
ideal situation for implementing this concept calls for united action
on the part of all UN members against the ‘aggressor’. Such
collective action is hardly possible in reality, as the Korean War
had exposed. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, there
would be no common consensus as to the identity of the
‘aggressor’. If nation A attacks nation B, nation A should be the
aggressor according to collective security principles. But in reality,
there would be no agreement among the member-states of the UN
on the identity of A as the aggressor. If nations C, D, E, F, and G
identify A as the aggressor, nations H, I, J, K would not, or may
even support A, while nations L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T may remain
silent and non-committal. Therefore, a collective action against A
would not be possible. In the complex world of international
politics, states are driven more by their national interests rather
than by improbable principles. Secondly, what would happen if the
military strength of the aggressor and its supporters are more than
the collective force of the UN? Would it lead to another World
War? The chances may not be ruled out. Thirdly, situations may
not always be favourable for a country, even if it agrees on the
identity of the aggressor, to contribute military forces for collective
security. At a time when collective security is sought, its military
may be required for domestic insurgencies or civil wars. In that
case, the UN force would not have the required strength and the
purpose of collective security may be defeated.

Due to these limitations, collective security has not only remained

an idealistic concept, its application might also prove to be
dangerous for international peace, as the second point above
shows. It being a weak mechanism for the protection of world
peace, the UN did not place much importance on it. This is clearly
evident from the fact that the UN has never applied this
mechanism after the Korean War. Rather, it relies more on the
different forms of diplomacy (preventive or economic) for
maintaining international peace and security at this moment.

UN PEACEKEEPING

Peacekeeping activities of the UN are not clearly mentioned in the

UN Charter. They have only been partially referred in chapters
6 and 7. After the Second World War, Peacekeeping missions of the
UN were initially undertaken as extensions of the collective
security mechanism, where member-states were required to
provide military forces to the UN. Such forces could be used in
response to aggressions. Gradually, efforts were made to keep the
UN force in a troubled area to maintain peace. Sometimes, the
multinational UN force, popularly known as the Blue Helmets, had
to stay in a war zone for decades. As a consequence, peacekeeping
efforts of the UN became a continuous activity and assumed
significance in the study of the UN system. Though initially it was
an extension of the collective security system, peacekeeping has
now assumed greater importance on its own.

The Blue Helmets are not required to fight wars. They are sent by
the Secretary-General to a troubled area at the invitation of a host
government and must leave the area if the government wants so.
They do not meddle in any conflict, but remain armed to defend
themselves against any possible attack. Their sole purpose is to
monitor peace and dissuade contending parties from using force.
They have a moral authority to monitor peace due to the fact that
their presence was agreed upon by all the contending parties and
authorized by a supreme global body. Nowadays, the Security
Council controls peacekeeping operations, and it also recommends
to the Secretary-General the deployment of peacekeeping forces in
a troubled zone. Funds for peacekeeping operations must be
approved by the General Assembly. Such operations appropriate a
large portion of the UN budget. By 2000, costs of peacekeeping
reached $2.6 billion.

Peacekeeping faces serious challenges when there is a civil war,

when a government collapses or when there is severe famine. All
these happened in Somalia in 1993. In the absence of a proper
government, there is no taker for UN peacekeeping in such cases.
Moreover, prevailing civil wars expose the peacekeepers to the
great dangers of being targeted, ambushed or killed. Peacekeeping,
therefore, operates best when there is a ceasefire agreed upon by
all contending parties. Since 1948, when the first peacekeeping
operation was undertaken by the UN, numerous other such
missions have been launched by this international body. Among
them, sixteen peacekeeping missions are still continuing in
different parts of the world. Table 5.2 lists ongoing peacekeeping
operations by the United Nations.

The UN peacekeeping actually involves two major functions:

observation and peacekeeping. Observers are unarmed military
personnel sent to a troubled zone to watch the situation and report
back to the UN. Observation is no easy job. Observers are required
to monitor the prevalence of human rights and democratic
principles in troubled areas, as also ceasefire or elections. In other
words, they help in the process of transition from war to
democracy. This function of observation proved immensely
beneficial for Nicaragua and El Salvador after the Cold War. For
purposes of peacekeeping, lightly armed military (they would not
take an active part in conflicts) are sent to the troubled zone to
dissuade warring parties and negotiate with their military leaders.
They have a very sensitive role. They must make the conflicting
sides feel that they are impartial. Peacekeeping efforts of the
United Nations would have little chance of succeeding if
considered biased by any side.

Table 5.2: Ongoing UN Peacekeeping Operations (1948–2008)

Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/list/list.pdf/.

With the end of the Cold War, UN peacekeeping changed from

traditional missions involving strictly military tasks to complex
multidimensional activities aimed at building the foundations for
sustainable peace. According to a UN report, ‘Today’s peacekeepers
undertake a wide variety of complex tasks, from helping to build
sustainable institutions of governance, to human rights
monitoring, to security sector reform, to the disarmament,
demobilization and reintegration of former combatants.’ The
report further observes that the ‘nature of conflicts has also
changed over the years. Originally developed as a means of dealing
with inter-State conflict, UN peacekeeping has been increasingly
applied to intra-State conflicts and civil wars’ (http://www.un.org).
Although the Blue Helmets still constitute the backbone of most
peacekeeping operations, the many faces of peacekeeping now
include administrators and economists, legal experts and police
officers, election and human rights observers, specialists in civil
affairs and governance, de-miners and experts in communications
and public information.

UN PEACEMAKING

UN peacemaking is different from UN peacekeeping. While

peacekeeping operations started in 1948, UN peacemaking is a
relatively new effort that was initiated after the end of the Cold
War. In 1992, the then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-
Ghali proposed to create a UN peacemaking force that would not
only monitor a ceasefire, but also enforce it in the case of a
breakdown. This would require heavily armed military personnel
(unlike the peacekeepers) who would have to enter into a battle
with the violators of a ceasefire. Boutros-Ghali proposed a
peacemaking force that would be very quick to respond, unlike the
peacekeeping force that sometimes took several months to reach
the troubled zone. Although Ghali’s proposals were not
enthusiastically accepted by all member-states, it nevertheless set
the ball rolling for peacemaking efforts by the UN. Today, besides
military measures, peacemaking also involves preventive
diplomacy. As one UN report observes, ‘the end of the Cold War
created new opportunities to end civil wars through negotiated
peace settlements. A large number of conflicts were brought to an
end, either through direct UN mediation or by the efforts of others
acting with UN support. The list includes El Salvador, Guatemala,
Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Tajikistan, Bougainville,
Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Burundi and the North-South conflict
in Sudan. Research has credited expanded UN peacemaking,
peacekeeping and conflict prevention activities as a major factor
behind a 40% decline in armed conflict around the world since the
1990s. An undetermined number of potential conflicts have been
defused through preventive diplomacy and other forms of
preventive action’ (http://www.un.org/.).
Figure 5.1: UN Charter-based Bodies on Human Rights
In June 2007, a Peace Building Commission (PBC) was created by
the members of the UN to support peace efforts in countries
emerging from conflicts. The PBC is an important addition to the
efforts of the UN at peacemaking after the Cold War. The
commission, according to a UN report, ‘plays a unique role in (1)
bringing together all of the relevant actors, including international
donors, the international financial institutions, national
governments, troop contributing countries; (2) marshalling
resources; and (3) advising on and proposing integrated strategies
for postconflict peace-building and recovery and where
appropriate, highlighting any gaps that threaten to undermine
peace’ (source: http://www.un.org). The resolutions of the General
Assembly and the Security Council establishing the commission
provided for the establishment of a Peacebuilding Fund and a
Peace-building Support Office, which together form the United
Nations peace-building architecture of today.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UNITED NATIONS

Since its inception, the United Nations had always espoused the
cause of human rights. The Preamble to the UN Charter has a
special mention of human rights. It promised ‘to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large
and small … and to promote social progress and better standards
of life in larger freedom’. An early effort of the UN to safeguard
human rights of the people all over the world could be traced back
to the General Assembly Resolution No. 217A, which created the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948.
Since then, the UN has always endeavoured to protect human
rights and fundamental freedoms of the people around the globe.
In its latest effort in this regard, in 2006 the UN created a Human
Rights Council to monitor human rights activities. UN documents
related to human rights have always reflected the changing and
complex demands of human rights practices.

Figure 5.2: UN Treaty-based Bodies on Human Rights

The human rights organizations of the UN may be broadly
classified into two kinds—charter-based bodies and treaty-based
bodies. Charter-based bodies owe their origin to provisions
contained in the UN Charter, while treaty-based bodies have been
established on the basis of certain legal instruments. Figures
5.1 and 5.2 illustrate both these types.

Among the charter-based bodies, detailed in Figure 5.1, the Sub-

Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
was one of the earlier UN organizations. It was established by a
resolution of the ECOSOC in June 1946. At the time of its
inception, it was known as Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The name was
subsequently changed in July 1999. The Sub-Commission met
annually on a regular basis from 1947 to 2006.

After 2006, its activities were mainly performed by the Human

Rights Council Advisory Committee (HRCAC). This is a new body
that was created by a resolution of the General Assembly in
December 2007. It superseded the activities of the Sub-
Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. It
mainly advises the UN Human Rights Council on issues of
safeguarding human rights of different sections of people all over
the world.

The third important charter-based body of the UN is the Human

Rights Council established by a General Assembly Resolution on 15
March 2006. This council establishes special procedures to
safeguard human rights. These procedures include carrying out
field surveys regarding human rights practices in different parts of
the world and generating reports from them. They involve special
rapporteurs, special representatives, independent experts and
working groups who investigate, discuss, and report about specific
human rights issues under a country or about different themes like
human trafficking, child labour and racial discrimination. In
addition to this, the Human Rights Council also undertakes a
universal periodic review of each state’s fulfillment of its human
rights obligations and commitments. The modalities of the
universal periodic review were decided in the fifth session of the
council. This council is a very effective body for the protection of
human rights in the world today.

The fourth and final charter-based body is the Commission on

Human Rights. It was established by the ECOSOC in 1946. This
Commission met in the annual sessions and, if required, in special
sessions. It reported to the ECOSOC. The Commission on Human
Rights concluded its sixty-second and final session on 27 March
2006. Its work is now continued by the Human Rights Council.
The office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, created in
1993 by the General Assembly, provides secretariat support to all
human rights bodies of the United Nations.

Among the treaty-based committees presented in Figure 5.2 above,

the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was
established by the Economic and Social Council to supervise the
implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. The committee meets thrice in Geneva every
year. States parties to the covenant are required to submit an
initial report on the measures adopted and the progress made by
them in achieving the rights recognized in the covenant, within two
years of its entry into force for the state party concerned and
thereafter every five years.
The second important treaty-based committee is the Committee
against Torture. It was established based on Article 17 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It supervises the
implementation of the provisions of the convention. The
committee meets twice each year in Geneva. Parties to the
convention (states) are also required to submit an initial report on
the measures taken under the convention, within one year of its
entry into force and thereafter every four years.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against

Women, the third in this category, was established pursuant to
Article 17 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women. This committee also supervises
the implementation of the provisions of the convention. The
committee meets twice each year in Geneva. Parties to the
convention are required by Article 18 to submit an initial report on
the legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures they have
adopted for the protection of rights as per the convention, within
one year of its entry into force and thereafter every four years.

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant

Workers and Members of Their Families, the next important
treaty-based committee, was established pursuant to Article 72 of
the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families to supervise the
implementation of the convention. The committee meets twice
every year in Geneva. Parties to the convention are required by
Article 73 to submit an initial report on measures adopted and on
the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights, within one
year of its entry into force and thereafter every five years.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the

fifth in line, was established by Article 8 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination to supervise the implementation of the convention.
The committee also meets twice every year in Geneva. Parties to
the convention are required by Article 9 to submit an initial report
on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures which
they have adopted for the protection of rights enumerated in the
convention, within one year of its entry into force and thereafter
every two years.

The sixth treaty-based committee, the Human Rights Committee,

was established pursuant to Article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee meets thrice
every year in New York and Geneva. Parties to the covenant are
required by Article 40 to submit an initial report on the measures
they have adopted to safeguard the covenant, as also on the
progress made in the enjoyment of those rights, within one year of
its entry into force and thereafter every five years. A unique feature
of this committee is that unlike other treaty-based committees, this
committee considers appeals from individuals—under the Optional
Protocol— who assert that their rights, as enumerated in the
covenant, have been violated without redressal in their countries of
origin.

Committee on the Rights of the Child is the seventh and final

treaty-based committee. It was established by Article 43 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child to supervise the
implementation of the convention. This committee meets thrice
every year in Geneva. Parties to the convention are required by
Article 44 to submit an initial report on measures adopted and
progress made on the enjoyment of those rights, within two years
of its entry into force and thereafter every five years.

No discussion on human rights and the UN is complete without

reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
mentioned earlier in this chapter. The preamble to the UDHR
notes that ‘disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted
in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,
and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has
been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people’.
The UDHR, in thirty articles that seek to protect all kinds of
human rights, has become a fundamental document of the UN in
its efforts to safeguard the basic rights and freedoms of all people
around the world. Though the UDHR does not have the power of
an international law, and sounds idealistic in today’s context, it
nevertheless sets a guideline for every member-state of the UN to
 follow some basic norms for the protection of human rights. In the
present world, no state can claim to have a perfect record on
human rights. As a consequence, the efforts of the UN to safeguard
human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people have
assumed increasing significance in our times.

UN REFORM PROPOSALS

More than six decades have passed since the establishment of the
UN. During this time, international relations and world politics
have undergone radical changes. With the end of the Cold War, the
bipolar nature of world politics and calculations based on this
order have come to an end. Some of the post-Second World War
major powers (such as Britain and France) have lost their earlier
significance, while some new economic and political powers (like
Japan, Germany, European Union, India, Brazil) have emerged.
With these changes, demands for reforming the UN have naturally
been made by various sections within and outside the UN system.
The UN is contemplating sweeping internal reforms, both at the
structural and functional levels, to adapt itself to the changing
needs of time. However, major UN reforms would call for an
amendment of the charter, which is an extremely difficult process.
Minor reforms, which do not require amendment of the UN
Charter, may be initiated quickly if member-states show political
will to achieve them.

Minor Reforms

1. Financial reforms: This is the most important in this category It can galvanize the functioning of
the UN to a great extent. At any point of time, about two-third members of the UN are in arrears. As a
result, the UN faces severe financial crises and cannot perform many activities due to paucity of funds. Such
crises of the UN can be averted if there is political will. Members may be compelled to pay their dues in
time. Appropriate interests may be levied for late payments. Member-states in arrears should face
unequivocal condemnation in the General Assembly, the largest body of the UN. An alternative proposal
could be that all aspiring members of the Security Council must clear their contributions to the UN, failing
which their claims would not be recognized. All members must press—and be ready to accept—internal
financial reforms with regard to budget ceilings, voting, allocation to programmes, costs of administration
and staffing. Unorthodox means of raising finance must be explored. These may include consultancy and
service charges, to be levied by ECOSOC and its specialized agencies, for any help to the nongovernment
organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). Costs might also be shared with regional
associations benefiting from UN peacekeeping operations. But all these financial reform proposals, as said
earlier, could be implemented only if there is genuine political will.
2. Peacekeeping operations: The Military Staff Committee (MSC) system provided by the charter
could never be used because of the Cold War. The ideal of collective security was also not very successful.
Instead, there evolved an ad hoc system of peacekeeping, for intervention in disputes where the two
 superpowers agreed not to dabble. Instead of all permanent members (P-5) controlling the UN military
operations (the ideal of collective security through great-power unity), peacekeeping almost always avoided
any involvement of the P-5. Until recently, the non-permanent members financed almost all peacekeeping
operations. The end of the Cold War has witnessed an increase in the UN peacekeeping operations. But the
elaborate MSC system still remains non-operative. The former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-
Ghali had made some suggestions for improving the role of the UN in the maintenance of international
peace and security. He had proposed the creation of a standing force, to be drawn from the defence forces of
nations around the world, to be ready for instant deployment. However, the creation of a standing force
would require amendments of the Charter and would be a complicated affair. An alternative, dependent
upon the political will of the member-states, would be the creation of a rapid action force of nearly one lakh
soldiers for a five-year term. The problem of financing peacekeeping operations could be solved if the
governments paid for UN operations from their heavy defence budgets rather than from the more skimpy
one of foreign affairs. Ghali also proposed a tax on arms sales, a levy on international air travel (which is
dependent on the maintenance of world peace) and tax exemptions for private donations to the UN for
peacekeeping operations. The peacekeeping cost needs to be compared with the much greater expense of
not undertaking peacekeeping.
3. The Secretariat: The Secretariat could be rejuvenated to a certain extent without amending the
charter. One tenable proposal is to appoint the Secretary-General for only one seven-year term, instead of
the present two five-year terms. It increases the temptation of the serving Secretary-General to use the end-
phase of the first term as an election campaign to get re-appointed. Only one term in office would do away
with such temptation and make the office-holder more independent and at the same time more responsible.
The staff of the Secretariat should be minimized, and the Secretariat must be made a truly international
civil service. Recruitment should be on merit and not on the whims of the national governments who use
the UN as a charitable ground to distribute favours to retired politicians or relatives of the ruling elite.
Recruitment should be preferably made at the lower levels. More women should be inducted in to the UN
Secretariat. The staff must be made faithful to the promise they make at the time of joining the Secretariat,
to avoid taking instructions from their national governments. The neutrality of the UN bureaucracy is
absolutely necessary to make it a truly responsive international civil service.
4. Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ is the prime legal body on the
international platform. But, attendance at the ICJ is not mandatory for the member-states of the UN.
Moreover, only about one-third of the members of the UN accept its jurisdiction. Some obvious reforms
could be that attendance at the ICJ is made mandatory, all members are made to accept its jurisdiction, and
greater use of the ICJ is made in the settlement of disputes among member-states.

Major Reforms

Major reforms of the UN call for the reorganization of the principal

organs that require amendment of the Charter. These reforms,
though not easy to achieve, have generated a lot of debate and
curiosity.
1. The General Assembly: It is the world’s main political forum, the ‘talking shop’ of the UN. But it
often talks without a purpose. It adopts non-binding resolutions which mainly reflect how the governments
across the world think on particular issues. At present, this body is a unnecessarily big and cumbersome one
with five representatives per nation. An important pertinent reform proposal is that representation should
be based on the entire population of a nation, instead of the current five per nation. An alternative proposal
is to make representation to the General Assembly at a uniform two per nation. This proposal seems more
tenable as representation on the basis of the population might foster a sense of inequality in the General
Assembly, leading to its further ineffectiveness. Two representatives per nation would reduce the size of the
Assembly and make it more effective. The Assembly would be devoid of either some garrulous or some
 sleeping members. Another significant reform proposal is to make the resolutions of the Assembly binding.
This would give teeth to this largest UN body, enabling it to share some power with the Security Council.
The Assembly must sit frequently, preferably once in every two months. It would be easier for a smaller
General Assembly to sit frequently.
2. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC): This body is also unnecessarily large and complex.
Currently, it has fifty-four members elected for a three-year term. The ECOSOC has six functional
commissions, five regional commissions, and 600 affiliated NGOs. There are sixteen autonomous
specialized agencies, like the UNDP and WHO. There are also financial giants like the World Bank and the
IMF. Additionally, there are subsidiary bodies such as the UNICEF and the UNEP. Due to this complex
organizational structure, the ECOSOC suffers from lack of coordination between headquarters and field
teams, leading to imprecise mandates and uneven results. There is a bigger problem of how the functional
commissions and specialized agencies can be more effectively controlled by the ECOSOC. Specialized
agencies have their own agenda, and every agency has its own governing board. Each has its own method of
operation, its own objectives. This creates the problem of overlapping, and therefore confusion. One
obvious choice for reform would be to go for some kind of centralization, with a streamlined ‘authority’—a
commissioner or administrator (to be appointed by the Secretary-General)—to guarantee accountability.
But, given the decentralized organizational pattern of the UN, this kind of reform would be almost
impossible to achieve. A more feasible proposal is that the specialized agencies should concentrate on their
fundamental responsibility of collection of information, feasibility studies, programme design and specialist
publication, leaving fieldwork to the UNDP. A slimmer ECOSOC is the need of the hour. I would prefer a
thirty-member body with three-year terms. This would enable every ten members to retire after three years.
The ECOSOC may take nominal charges from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational
corporations (MNCs) for its services in the social, economic and cultural areas. This may help to solve some
of the financial problems of this body. ECOSOC must also prepare effective guidelines for sustainable
development, critical for any development policy.
3. The Security Council: The issue of restructuring the Security Council has attracted enormous
attention all over the world. How many members would a reorganized council have? How many of them
could be permanent, how many non-permanent? Who would be the new permanent member, and on what
grounds? Who among the existing five permanent members (P-5) are no longer regarded as great powers?
Would the new permanent members enjoy veto power? If yes, what would be the consequences? All these
intriguing questions are doing the rounds in world politics at this juncture. It is obvious that the P-5 are no
longer the main countries across the globe, as they were in 1945, when the UN was formed. Britain and
France are regarded by many scholars as the countries that need to be excluded from the P-5. But who
would dare to exclude these veto-armed nations? A preferred choice for reforming the council would be to
retain the P-5 and include some more permanent members. Germany and Japan are tipped to be the
favourites because of their emergence as major industrial nations after the Second World War. They have
also increased their financial contributions to the UN significantly. But if these two ‘developed’ countries
are included, what about representation from the vast ‘developing’ world? Here arises the dilemma, because
the aspirants from developing countries are many. The politics of reforms also revolves around this issue of
inclusion of new permanent members from the developing world. Who among Brazil, India, Argentina,
Nigeria, Mexico, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and probably others, should be included from this vast terrain
called the ‘developing’ world? One should also not forget some of the ‘developed’ aspirants like Italy,
Canada and the European Union.

This brings us to the question of the composition of a revamped

Security Council. A twenty-four-member council without
permanent membership has been suggested by many experts like
Richard Hudson and Frank Barnaby. This would enable each
country to chair the council for one month during the two-year
term of the membership of the council. The idea of permanent
membership of the Security Council was mooted to achieve great-
power unity that was thought necessary to preserve peace and
security in the post-Second World War period. But that vision
could not be materialized due to the superpower rivalry witnessed
during the Cold War years. As a result, the concept of collective
security failed miserably. As we know now, (the vision of) collective
security failed because it contradicted the prime factor of national
interest. The importance of national interest in world politics has
not dwindled after the Cold War. This compels one to discard the
ideal of any great-power bonhomie. This may be the reason to
disfavour permanent membership in a revamped Security Council.
The end of permanent membership will also solve the problem of
veto power, the most widely condemned item in the UN system.
There will be no veto power for the twenty-four non-permanent
members of the reorganized council. The proposals for inclusion of
new permanent members with or without veto are loaded with
possible dangers. More veto-wielding permanent members would
only exacerbate confusion and inefficiency in the council.
Permanent members without veto would become second-class
citizens, and lack in power to serve the council with confidence.
Therefore, some reasonable recommendations for a revamped
Security Council are as follows: (1) it would be a twenty-four-
member body without permanent membership; (2) the term of
each member would be two years, giving each member the chance
to to chair the council for one month; (3) no member would enjoy
any special power (veto); (4) decisions would be taken by a
majority vote of members present and voting, and the resolutions
of the council shall be binding upon all the members of the UN; (5)
the Security Council and the General Assembly must work in
tandem through regular consultations and working parties.
However, it should be noted here that any reform of the council
would be difficult, because any member-state from the P-5 may
flex its muscle, if the proposed reform goes against its interests.

Other Reforms

The proposals for minor and major reforms are both based on
retaining the UN’s fundamental structure as an organization of
nation-states. A third part of the UN reform spectrum consists of
ideas based on recognizing the role of non-state actors within the
UN system. The UN system must recognize the significance of the
MNCs and the NGOs and allow them a greater role within the
organization. The present world order began in 1648 with the
Treaty of Westphalia, and subsequent emergence of the nation-
states. But this system of nation-states as the principal actors in
world politics cannot cope with many of today’s problems.
National governments prove to be too small for some problems
and too large for others. Pollution and health hazards are now
global problems beyond the control of any single nation-state. A
new world order is evolving in which national governments have to
share their responsibilities with international organizations like
the MNCs and the NGOs.

The MNCs are the major global economic actors. They have greater
liquid assets than all the major central reserve banks combined.
With the introduction of free market economy almost everywhere
in the world, they can move money around the globe even more
easily. MNCs have themselves become global entities. The UN can
take their help in solving some of its financial problems. They in
turn benefit from the services rendered by the UN. Why could not
the MNCs, then, be charged for providing such services? At
present, the UN appears to be confused in handling the MNCs.
More effective ways to cooperate with them would be to include
them in some committees of the General Assembly or as
specialized agencies of the ECOSOC, allow them to work in specific
fields, and charge fees from them for such work in addition to
regular subscriptions.

NGOs have been involved in the functioning of the UN since its

inception. They were present at the San Francisco Conference in
1945, which finalized the UN Charter. They got official recognition
in Article 71 of the charter, which says that the ECOSOC could
consult the NGOs. Such ‘consultation’ with the NGOs takes various
forms at the UN. NGOs can attend meetings of bodies attached to
the ECOSOC, such as the Commission on Human Rights or the
Commission on the Status of Women, as also of the specialized
agencies. Their papers are circulated at such meetings. They may
seek permission to speak there. Permission may be granted to
them depending on availability of time. The NGOs have, therefore,
 found a place among nation-states of the UN. The need of the hour
is to strengthen their presence at the UN.

At present, the MNCs have no formal status at the UN, while the
NGOs have only ‘consultative’ status. The new global order calls for
more important roles for them in global decision-making and
international law through participation in the UN system. A
possible way to induct them into the system is to create two
committees of the General Assembly where representatives of
MNCs and NGOs could express their views on proposed
resolutions. This would enable them to share the same platform
with national governments and open dialogue and areas of
cooperation with these governments. The national governments
would also learn to share their power with the MNCs and NGOs. In
an era of globalization, the state and various non-state actors must
learn to cooperate with one another. While such cooperation is
taking place outside the UN, the largest international body of
nation-states must also create opportunities for important non-
state actors to air their voices and share their expertise within the
UN system. In the new international order, MNCs and NGOs can
never be left behind in any effort towards peace, security and
development of the world.

QUESTIONS

1. Discuss the origin of the United Nations.

2. Analyse the composition and functions of the General Assembly.
3. Discuss the composition and functions of the Security Council.
4. Write a note on the ECOSOC.
5. Analyse the role of the Secretary General of the UN.
6. Make a critical estimate of the World Court (ICJ) of the UN.
7. Examine the idea of Collective Security.
8. Analyse the role of the UN in peacekeeping.
9. Bring out the significance of the UN in safeguarding human rights.
10. Write a note on the reform proposals of the UN.

6
Other Inter-governmental Organizations

NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT (NAM)

The end of the Second World War saw a new international order
not known to the world earlier. The international system came to
be dominated by two superpowers—the United States of America
(USA) and the erstwhile Soviet Union, known officially as the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). These two
superpowers tried to influence other countries militarily,
economically, as well as ideologically. Both the USA and the USSR
were engaged in an intensified propaganda against each other and
spent huge sums on it. They wanted to bring other countries to
their respective spheres of influence, and for this purpose, they
created security and economic alliances after the Second World
War. As a consequence, the world became bipolar, and an intense
bloc politics, where the two superpowers were engaged in building
their own blocs, emerged. This led to mutual distrust, hatred and
sharp rivalry between the two superpowers. The USA, in order to
counter the spread of communism, encouraged West European
nations to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a
military alliance, in 1949. The Soviet Union countered the NATO
by forming the Warsaw Pact, another military alliance of East
European nations, in 1955. Though these military alliances were
initially formed in Europe after the Second World War, the
Americans and the Soviets gradually tried to bring other Asian,
African and Latin American countries under their military and
economic influences. As a consequence, two ‘supra national’ blocs
emerged in world politics. The world was sharply being split into a
‘communist’ part, and what the Americans called the ‘free world’.

A parallel line of thought opposing this bipolar nature of the world

was also evolving after the Second World War. Some developing
nations defied the call of the superpowers to join their blocs, and
nurtured the dream of a world free of bloc politics and the intense
political tension associated with it. Some newly independent
nation-states showed greater inclination to maintain their
autonomy outside bloc politics. They felt that rendering allegiance
to any of the superpowers would infringe upon their freedom to
decide their own course after the much-awaited independence of
their motherlands. Prominent among these newly-independent
developing countries was India, which rejected the idea of joining
any bloc after the Second World War. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
Prime Minister of India, was opposed to militarism and preferred
relying more on the age-old Indian traditions of non-violence and
peaceful cooperation among nation-states. He was joined by
Indonesian President Sukarno and Egyptian President Nasser, and
they endeavoured to create a world free of bloc politics and
military alignments. It was due to their efforts that the Non-
Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged and gathered strength in
world politics after the Second World War.

Origin of the NAM

The idea of a non-alignment movement was conceived at the

conference of Afro-Asian countries held in New Delhi in 1947. After
India gained independence from British rule, it decided not to join
any power bloc. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian Prime Minister,
took the initiative to encourage these Afro-Asian nations to fight
against the evils of colonialism and imperial domination.

The term ‘non-alignment’ was first used by Nehru in a speech he

delivered in 1954 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In it, Nehru described the
five guiding principles for China-India relations. These principles,
known as ‘panchsheel’ (five pillars), would later serve as the basis
of the NAM. These were: (1) respect for each other’s sovereignty
and territorial integrity; (2) non-aggression; (3) non-interference
in domestic affairs; (4) equality for all; (5) peaceful co-existence.
But in its truest sense, the NAM took a proper shape at the
Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian countries held in Indonesia in
1955. The attending twenty-nine nations declared their wish not to
get involved in the Cold War and adopted a Declaration on
Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation, which included
Nehru’s five principles. The Bandung Conference emphasized the
need for emancipation of the people from colonial rule and urged
the newly independent nation-states to stay away from bloc politics
and adhere to the principles of nonalignment. This conference had
built the base for the movement.

After Bandung, it took six more years to arrange the first non-
aligned summit in Belgrade, the capital city of former Yugoslavia,
in 1961. Meanwhile, erstwhile Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito
expressed his support to the non-aligned movement and invited
the non-aligned countries to organize their first summit in
Belgrade. Twenty-five countries participated at the Belgrade
 Summit. The basic thrust of this first non-aligned summit was on
peace, socio-economic development of the underprivileged
countries and disarmament of the world. The Belgrade Declaration
on Peace evoked global response.

Membership of the NAM

The Belgrade Summit clearly outlined the conditions required for a

state to be declared a nonaligned state. The summit set five
conditions, mainly based on panchsheel, for a state to become a
member of the non-aligned movement. These are as follows:
1. a state willing to join the NAM must formulate an independent foreign policy aimed at
establishing mutual cooperation among nation-states;
2. it should support independence and right to self-determination of every nationality;
3. it should not be a member of any military alliance created out of conflicts of big powers;
4. if it enters into any bilateral or regional military alliance, such agreement or alliance must not be
created out of conflicts of the big powers;
5. if it allows any foreign military base on its soil, such base must not be created out of the conflicts
of big powers.

The underlying implication of all these five principles was that a

non-aligned nation shall follow an independent foreign policy,
shall support the independence of a nation and shall not enter into
bloc politics. It needs to be mentioned in this context that
nonalignment does not imply neutrality. The NAM believes that
neutrality is a negative concept and that as a policy it has little
meaning. Neutrality invokes passivity towards international
politics. But a non-aligned movement means conscious and
willing detachment from any power bloc; and therefore the
movement is not at all indifferent to world politics. The movement
not only allows the nations to have greater manoeuvrability in their
foreign policies but also to express opinion on any international
issue independently. More and more countries joined the NAM to
oppose the policy of alignment and bloc politics since the Second
World War.

Since its first summit in Belgrade in 1961, membership of the NAM

went on increasing. In 2008, NAM had 118 member-states. After
the United Nations Organization (UNO), it is the largest
organization of nation-states in the world, containing 55 per cent
of the world population. Box 6.1 contains a list of the current
members of the NAM.
 Box 6.1: Current Members of the NAM

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas,

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan,
Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile,
Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon,
Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica,
Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya,
Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia,
Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan,
Palestine, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar,
Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand,
Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan,
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela,
Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Besides 118 regular members, the NAM offers ‘observer’ status to

several countries and organizations within and outside the UN
system. It also invites ‘guests’ to its summits. Like that of an
observer, guest status is also given to states and organizations. Box
6.2 shows current observers and guests of the NAM. Members have
the right to leave the organization. New members can also join the
NAM provided they fulfill the criteria for becoming members.

Box 6.2: Observers and Guests of the NAM

The following nations, along with some organizations, have

observer status in the NAM:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Costa Rica,
Croatia, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Paraguay,
People’s Republic of China, Serbia, Ukraine, Uruguay.

There is no permanent guest status in the NAM, but often several

non-member countries represent as guests at NAM Summits. In
addition, a large number of organizations, both from within the
UN system and outside, are always invited as guests.

Organizational Structure of the NAM

The NAM, like other inter-governmental organizations, has no

fixed organizational structure. It considers itself to be non-
hierarchal in nature and no country enjoys any special privileges
here. The organization does not have any constitution as many
similar organizations do. This was done out of the belief that with
so many member-countries having so many diverse views and
interests, any formal administrative structure would increase
divisiveness in the organization. Members chair the different
summits by official rotation. The Head of the State or the Head of
the Government of the country where a NAM summit is held
becomes the chairperson of the NAM for the next three years, or
till a fresh summit is organized in another country. Thus, the head
of the state or the government of a new NAM summit takes over as
the new chairperson of the organization. The head of the state of
Egypt became the new chairperson of the NAM in 2009.

Fifteen non-aligned summits were held from 1961 to 2009 in

different parts of the world. A non-aligned summit normally takes
place every three years, although political disturbances have
caused cancellations of regular summits in the past. The details of
the fifteen NAM summits held till 2009 are given in Table 6.1.

During the Cold War, the NAM acted as a powerful alternative for a
vast majority of nations who wanted to remain non-committal
towards any power bloc. It not only promoted the interest of newly
independent nations, but also tried to influence the decisions of the
United Nations and other international bodies in favour of the
developing countries. However, Western critics believed that in
reality the NAM failed to play any successful role in international
politics. They argued that hardly any member-nation could stay
outside the influence of the two superpowers during the Cold War.
As a consequence, according to Western critics, the movement was
not truly nonaligned because several members became aligned to
superpowers, making a mockery of the ideals of the movement.

There is possibly some truth in the view that the nonaligned

nations could not remain isolated from bloc politics during the
Cold War. Due to economic and political compulsions, several
members of the NAM leaned towards either of the two
superpowers during the Cold War, subjecting the movement to
controversy. Despite such criticism, it may be said that the
movement could provide the vast majority of developing nations
with a very important platform to fight against economic and
political exploitation by the developed nations. The NAM was
successful in waging a continuous struggle against neocolonialism,
use of armaments and economic inequality. It also encouraged the
developing nations to pursue an independent foreign policy. Its
popularity could be assessed from the continuous rise in
membership during the Cold War. For the developing countries,
the NAM was indeed an alternative to bloc politics, and a voice for
the Third World, which the developing nations wanted to make
survive. Although for political and economic compulsions many
third world nations tilted towards the superpowers, yet they did
not wish to see the end of the NAM. This desire on their part
helped the NAM to continue as a significant organization even
after the Cold War, although doubts were raised regarding its
continued survival.

Table 6.1: NAM Summits: 1961–2009

The end of the Cold War saw the end of bloc politics and of
bipolarity in world politics. The disintegration of the Soviet Union
helped the US to emerge as the only superpower in the world. In
the absence of bloc politics, what would be the relevance of the
NAM, which originated only to counter the politics of alignment?
This question became pertinent in the post-Cold War era, and
leads to the discussion on the relevance of the NAM in
contemporary international relations.

Relevance of the NAM in Today’s World

During the Cold War, nonalignment blossomed from a principle

into a movement. However, doubts have been raised in the
academic sphere about the relevance of the NAM since the end of
the Cold War in1991. Momentarily, it seemed that with the end of
the Cold War and the disappearance of the erstwhile bloc politics,
the NAM had become marginalized. Scholars argued that the
ideological and intellectual vigour of the movement had
diminished in the absence of rival power blocs. But in reality the
NAM has not lost its relevance after the Cold War; it has adopted
new and newer policies relevant to the post-Cold War world order.
These policies have helped the movement not only to survive, but
to garner strength as well. Therefore, the survival and continuous
significance of the movement cannot be questioned at the moment.
This proposition can be strengthened by the fact that in the post-
Cold War period six successful summits were held by the NAM
(1992, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2009). At all of these summits,
member-states of the NAM have stressed upon the continuous
significance of the movement and outlined the altered role of the
NAM in a new international order. The six NAM summits held so
far after the Cold War put emphasis on the social and economic
progress of the developing nations, and the role of the NAM in
these areas. From a primarily political orientation during the Cold
War, the NAM has shifted its attention to socio-economic,
ecological, health, anti-terrorism and related issues during the
post-Cold War period. This does not mean that the NAM has
dropped its political agenda; it is still a significant base for
upholding the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the
developing countries, as also an important platform to fight for the
right to self-determination of oppressed nationalities. Alongside its
political agenda, the NAM is also putting emphasis on other areas
as mentioned above, because these issues have gained prominence
in international relations after the Cold War.

A study of some of the proceedings of the last few NAM summits

reveals the changing role of the NAM in the new international
order. For instance, at the eleventh summit of the NAM held in
October 1995 at Cartagena, Columbia, the then UN Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali identified the changing role of the
NAM after the Cold War. Ghali told the summit: ‘The end of the
Cold War has freed the world of some of the political
encumbrances that impeded its progress. The global society which
is coming into being is rich with promise. But as we all know, it
may also be fraught with dangers for the weakest and the most
deprived … The Non-Aligned Movement more than any other
entity, should therefore become active in this combat against
exclusion from the fruits of progress, by fighting for economic and
social development.’ Ghali categorically invited the NAM-states to
fight for socio-economic justice, because socio-economic problems
of the developing world have not diminished with the eclipse of the
Cold War.

The twelfth NAM summit at Durban in South Africa in September

1998 endorsed the new role expected to be played by the NAM at
the dawn of the new century. In the Durban Declaration for the
New Millenium, member-states of the NAM endorsed the altered
role of the NAM in the context of globalization and free market
economy. The Durban Declaration stated:
 We now stand on the threshold of a new era. An era
that offers great opportunity yet possess special
danger for the developing world.… Whilst
globalization holds out the promise of prosperity, it
brings with it severe challenges for the developing
countries … Liberalization must not provide a cover
for the protectionist policies of the rich and
powerful … we must act positively to shape our
future, advocating a new system of international
relations that is both democratic and representative
of all.…
Although the Durban Declaration outlined the brighter sides of
globalization and liberal economy, it also sent out signals of
caution about the negative influence of globalization and liberal
economy on the developing nations. The declaration cautioned the
developing nations about the economic disparity that might be
created as a result of globalization and free market economy. The
rich and developed countries might reap the fruits of liberal
economy and globalization, warned the declaration. It also stated
that the NAM should strive hard to remove the stark economic
disparity between the developed and the developing world in the
post-Cold War world. Finally, it outlined the role of the NAM in
eradicating the dangers of the Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMDs) like nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological
weapons, and urged the NAM countries to wage a fresh struggle
against deadly diseases like AIDS, cancer and thalasemia, that have
posed severe health hazards to the world.

The relevance of the NAM in the post-Cold War era became the
focus of discussion in the thirteenth NAM summit held at Kuala
Lumpur, Malayasia in 2003. The Kuala Lumpur Declaration on
Continuing the Revitalization of the Non-Aligned Movement
emphasized on the role of the NAM in an era of globalization and
communication revolution. The declaration called for a more
strong and powerful nonaligned movement to meet the challenges
of the new century. It stated:

The future presents as many challenges and

opportunities as the past and the movement must
continue to remain strong, cohesive and resilient.
 The continued relevance of the movement will
depend, in large measure, on the unity and
solidarity of its members as well as its ability to
adapt to these changes. In this regard, the process
of the revitalization of the movement … must be
given further impetus.
The future of the NAM shall depend on the unity of the member-
states and on their mutual cooperation. Apart from this, the NAM
has to face and accept new challenges of the new world. The long
way travelled by the NAM, from Bandung to Havana, in the last
fifty years has made it stronger and more resilient. It will also rise
to meet new challenges in the future, as it had done in the past,
because the NAM has adjusted itself remarkably to the demands of
the new international order.

In the Havana Summit of 2006, the member-states of the NAM

had stressed the need for giving new impetus to the movement, for
putting in new efforts. This movement was launched during the
Cold War to counter the hegemony of the superpowers. These
states think that, in keeping with this objective, they must now
work against a growing hegemony of the sole surviving
superpower, the United States. They also called for
multilateralism, the reform of the UN system and socioeconomic
development. The NAM also vowed to defend the rights of the
peoples to peace, sovereignty and self-determination; oppose the
use of war or the threat of its use in solving international problems.
The movement upheld the rights of all countries to peacefully use
nuclear energy, including the right to enrich uranium for
producing electricity. It also rejected all terrorism against civilian
populations.

A statement, issued by the NAM summit in Havana, called for the

withdrawal of the Israeli occupation forces from the Gaza Strip and
urged Israel to immediately release all detained Palestinian
officials. About 3,000 delegates from over a hundred countries,
including fifty-six heads of state or government and ninety foreign
ministers, as well as other dignitaries and senior officials, attended
the Havana summit. Two new members joined the movement in
Havana— Haiti, and St. Kitts and Nevis—bringing the movement’s
membership to 118 nations, almost two-thirds of the members of
the United Nations.

These summits (Cartagena, Durban, Kuala Lumpur and Havana)

of the NAM have categorically identified its objectives in the
backdrop of the current international order. Firstly, these summits
have emphasized the need for more vigorous steps to tackle not
only complex political issues but also socio-economic problems.
With the end of the Cold War and the power blocs remaining no
more, the increasing relevance of the movement could be felt when
it continued to voice the plight of the developing world. The end of
the Cold War did not put an end to the exploitative and restrictive
tendencies of the rich and advanced countries. As a consequence,
the poor nations continued to suffer. The prevailing political
imbalance and socio-economic inequalities aroused grave concern
in the NAM. As a result, it has now engaged itself in fighting
neocolonialism, so that the developing nations are not exploited by
the advanced countries. Secondly, in an age of globalization and
liberal economy, the underdeveloped countries of the South are
prone to more exploitation by the rich North. Although NAM
recognizes the positive effects of globalization, it is aware of the
dangers of liberal economy vis-à-vis the third world. So, it wants to
secure the interests of the developing nations in a complex
globalized world order. For this purpose, NAM is inclined towards
achieving adequate economic growth rates in the under-privileged
countries. Thirdly, the movement has planned to take appropriate
steps to eradicate problems of poverty, illiteracy, health,
environment and terrorism, because these problems have
continued to affect the world since the Cold War. To fight these
problems, nonaligned nations would also seek the support of the
developed countries and express their desire to work
together. Fourthly, NAM is supportive of dismantling nuclear
arsenals. It has pledged to work for general and complete
disarmament so that peace can be truly achieved in a world free of
bloc politics. Fifthly, the unprecedented development of
information technology (IT) has divided the world into two zones.
This split in the field of IT is called the digital divide. The edge the
developed nations acquired over the developing countries in the
field of IT has given them added power in international political
and economic spheres. Satellite communication, super computers,
inter-continental ballistic missiles and other such facilities have
provided extra mileage to the developed nations over the poor
countries. Durban and Kuala Lumpur summits of the NAM have
pledged to remove the digital divide from the world. Sixthly, apart
from socio-economic issues, the NAM would also look into the
political issues affecting the developing nations with equal
emphasis and caution. In fact, it had criticized and protested
against many political events that had occurred in the post-Cold
War period. NAM condemned the US for its military expeditions in
Afghanistan and Iraq. The bombing of Kosovo by the NATO and
the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia were bitterly criticized by the
nonaligned nations in their summits after the Cold War. Seventhly,
NAM wants to eliminate the painful phenomenon of debt trap’,
which the advanced countries create by means of providing loans
and aids. For this purpose, NAM not only insisted on new
economic measures for the development of nonaligned nations but
also invited the international economic institutions and agencies to
extend loan facilities at low interest rates to the developing
nations. Lastly, NAM would extend material and moral support to
the exploited people of the world in their fight for the right to self-
determination and dignity. Since the rich-poor divide continues to
exist in the world after the end of the Cold War, the relevance of
the NAM as an organization representing the developing nations
has grown over the years.

In the new international order, developing nations are ready to be

more cooperative with each other on economic and political issues
within and outside the framework of the NAM. So, the nonaligned
nations have formed both big and small groups like G-15 or G-77
among themselves which interact and cooperate with each other on
socio-economic and political issues. But this does not prevent the
developing nations from entering into economic relations with the
developed countries. The flexible organizational structure of the
NAM is a great advantage in this respect. Though the NAM
upholds the plight of the developing nations, it nurtures no
animosity towards the developed ones, and calls for cooperation
with the advanced world for the socio-economic benefit of the
former. To maintain such flexibility, NAM has not imposed any
constitution or legal parameters for its members. It rather
encourages the nonaligned nations to maximize opportunities of
meeting domestic economic needs while minimizing dependence
on others. In order to have adequate economic growth as fast as
possible, NAM sees no harm in cultivating economic and political
relations among the nonaligned nations, as well as between them
and the developed ones.

COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

The Commonwealth of Nations, commonly known as the

Commonwealth, is an association of independent states, most of
which were former British colonies or their dependencies. In 2008,
the commonwealth had fifty-three members, and barring Britain
and Mozambique, other members were former British colonies or
dependencies. The commonwealth is an association of
independent sovereign states, and no member-state can impose its
decisions over others. It is a voluntary political union of
independent states, with members enjoying the right to leave the
association. Though the British Monarch—presently Queen
Elizabeth II—is the Head of the Commonwealth, her headship is
purely nominal and symbolic. Member-states are not subject to the
authority of the British monarch, as they joined the commonwealth
voluntarily, while retaining the sovereignty of their countries. They
voluntarily accepted the British Crown as the symbolic head of the
organization which observes the principle of equality for all its
members.

Origin

The origin of the commonwealth could be traced back to the late

1880s when the British and the other colonial prime ministers had
begun to hold regular conferences on common political interests.
Such prime-ministerial meetings led to imperial conferences that
began to take place since the late 1920s. These conferences were
meetings where Heads of Government of the former British
Empire assembled to discuss important political issues. The idea of
the commonwealth developed from such conferences, where the
independence of the self-governing colonies and dominions was
recognized. The Balfour Declaration, made at the Imperial
Conference in 1926, could be credited with the birth of the British
Commonwealth. The Balfour Declaration of 1926, named after the
British political leader Arthur Balfour, was a report that stated the
relationship among governments of the British empire. It stated
that Britain and its dominions are autonomous communities
within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to
one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs—
though united by a common allegiance to the crown—and freely
associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It
should be kept in mind here that this Balfour Declaration of 1926 is
different from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 relating to the
creation of the state of Israel. The Statute of Westminster 1931,
which is an Act of the British parliament, formalized the Balfour
Declaration of 1926. Therefore, the British Commonwealth started
its journey ‘formally’ in 1931.

After the Second World War, several British colonies in Asia and
Africa became independent, and the vast British Empire
dismantled gradually. As a consequence, the word ‘British’ was
dropped from the earlier ‘British Commonwealth’ in 1949, in the
meeting of prime ministers of the newly independent states in
London, and the organization was renamed Commonwealth of
Nations’. The statement that arose from this meeting, the London
Declaration, is therefore treated as the fundamental document of
the new commonwealth. In it, the newly independent countries
agreed to accept the British monarch as their symbolic head,
without surrendering their sovereignty. India took a lead in this
regard. It declared that when it would become a Republic in 1950,
it would have no problem in accepting the British monarch as the
symbolic head, although the constitutional head would be the
President of India. Other countries welcomed this stand of India
and accepted the British crown as their symbolic head, although all
of them had their respective Heads of the State. Thus, the new
Commonwealth of Nations, an international organization of
independent states with the British monarch as the symbolic head,
started a new journey with the London Declaration of 1949.

Membership

The issue of membership of the commonwealth changed from time

to time as the organization evolved from an old union of British
dominions to a new association of independent states. The Statute
of Westminster, 1931, laid down the provision that membership
required British dominionhood. The London Declaration changed
 this provision and stated that membership would be open to
republics and monarchies who would accept the British crown as
the head of the commonwealth. However, in the wake of
decolonization, and movements for racial equality and socio-
economic justice throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the Singapore
Declaration of the commonwealth in 1971 stated that membership
would be open to countries with declared policies of equality,
peace, protection of human rights, liberty and free trade. It formed
the basis for membership of the commonwealth, although these
criteria for membership could not always be strictly enforced. The
Harare Declaration of the commonwealth in 1991 vowed to enforce
the criteria for membership adopted in the Singapore Declaration.
The following is a relevant extract from it:

 We believe that international peace and order, global economic development and the rule of
international law are essential to the security and prosperity of mankind;
 We believe in the liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all citizens regardless
of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief, and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by
means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives;
 We recognize racial prejudice and intolerance as a dangerous sickness and a threat to healthy
development, and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil;
 We oppose all forms of racial oppression, and we are committed to the principles of human
dignity and equality;
 We recognize the importance and urgency of economic and social development to satisfy the basic
needs and aspirations of the vast majority of the peoples of the world, and seek the progressive removal of
the wide disparities in living standards amongst our members.

These principles were accepted as criteria for membership of the

commonwealth. A Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group
(CMAG) was created in 1995 to determine the issue of membership
of countries on the basis of the Harare Declaration. At present, this
declaration serves as the guiding document for membership of the
commonwealth.

This was an analysis of how the criteria for membership of the

commonwealth evolved. The criteria as it stands at present
demands the following: (1) a member must be a sovereign state; (2)
it must recognize the British monarch as the head of the
Commonwealth of Nations; (3) it must adhere to the Harare
principles; (4) it must accept the English language as the medium
of communication in the commonwealth; (5) it must respect the
wishes of the general population vis-à-vis commonwealth
membership.
Fifty-three countries are members of the commonwealth at
present. Box 6.3 shows the names of the member-states as in 2010.
Applications from some countries for membership are being
considered by the commonwealth. Some more members would be
admitted to it in 2010.

Structure

Head of the Organization

In acordance with the London Declaration of 1949, the head of the

commonwealth should be linked to the British monarchy. Queen
Elizabeth II holds the position at present. However, it may be
mentioned that the successor to the British crown does not
automatically become the head of the commonwealth. They must
be recognized by the member-states. This position of the head of
the organization is purely a symbolic and nominal one. The
Secretary-General of the commonwealth is the real executive head
who looks after the day-to-day administration of the
commonwealth.

Box 6.3: Members of the Commonwealth (2010)

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados,

Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica,
Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati,
Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and
the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore,
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania,
Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom,
Vanuatu, Zambia
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Second to the nominal head, who remains at the top of the

organization, is the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting (CHOGM). This is the highest decision-making body of
the commonwealth where heads of government of the member-
states—like prime ministers and presidents—assemble for a few
days to discuss matters of mutual interest. CHOGM is the
successor to the prime ministers’ conferences, as also to the
imperial conferences and colonial conferences dating back to 1887.
Apart from the CHOGM, other ministers of the member-countries
also meet regularly to discuss issues relating to their areas. As
such, there are regular meetings like those of foreign ministers,
education ministers, finance ministers or defence ministers. In
these meetings, areas of cooperation and related matters are
discussed. Important organizational decisions are taken in the
CHOGM and other ministerial meetings.
Commonwealth Secretariat

The Commonwealth Secretariat is the main coordinating body of

the organization. Established in 1965, the secretariat is headed by
the Secretary-General and located in London. As per new rules,
effective since the CHOGM held in Cyprus in 1993, the Secretary-
General is elected by the Commonwealth Heads of Government for
not more than two four-year terms. Before 1993, a Secretary-
General could enjoy a term more than eight years. The present
Secretary-General of the commonwealth is Kamlesh Sharma of
India, who took office in April 2008. The former Secretaries-
General were Arnold Smith of Canada (1965–1975), Sir Sridath
Ramphal of Guyana (1975–1990), Chief Emeka Anyaoku of Nigeria
(1990–2000) and Don McKinnon of New Zealand (2000–2008).

The main task of the secretariat is to facilitate cooperation among

the member-states. It organizes commonwealth summits
(CHOGMs), other ministerial meetings, meetings of the
consultative committees, and technical discussions. It plays a
pivotal role in organizing the Commonwealth Games. In
accordance with the principles and policies of the organization, the
Secretariat arranges for providing economic assistance to member-
states for developmental activities. It also arranges for suitable
measures to be adopted for technical development of the members.
As the main coordinating body of the commonwealth, the
secretariat also facilitates multilateral cooperation among
member-countries. Like the secretariat of similar other
organizations, the commonwealth secretariat also works as the
continuing office of the organization.

Main Objectives and Activities

The commonwealth activities pertain to almost all important areas
of human life like education, health, economy, good governance,
law, human rights, sports and cultural activities or gender issues.
The objectives of the commonwealth, as outlined for the first time
in the Singapore Declaration of 1971, were: (1) to promote
democracy and human rights throughout the world; (2) to work for
the economic development of the member-nations; (3) to achieve
quality universal education in member countries; (4) to secure
individual liberty; and (5) good governance in commonwealth
states. These objectives were subsequently reinforced by the
Lusaka Declaration of 1979, which called for a fight against racism;
the Langkawi Declaration of 1989, that put emphasis on
environmental sustainability; and, the Harare Declaration of 1991,
that outlined in detail the main functions of the organization. The
more recent Millennium Development Goals, adopted in 2003,
also added new directions to the objectives and activities of the
commonwealth.

In accordance with the Harare Declaration, a major objective of the

commonwealth is to promote democratic principles throughout the
world. The commonwealth sends experts to states which ask for its
services. These experts help to promote democracy and strengthen
democratic processes and institutions. The commonwealth also
works towards conflict prevention. The Secretary-General plays an
important role in this respect. The ‘good offices’ role played by
them is the organization’s primary mechanism for addressing
political problems and conflicts. The commonwealth secretariat
also makes arrangements for holding elections in member-states to
strengthen democracy.

Universal, sustainable and high quality education for all citizens is

another major objective of the commonwealth. The organization
tries to ensure that every individual has access to high quality
universal education, irrespective of age, socio-economic status or
ethnicity. It works closely with ministries of education of the
member-nations to promote this objective. It tries to use education
to mitigate HIV and AIDS. The commonwealth also tries to secure
gender equality in education. Further, the Human Rights Unit
(HRU) of the commonwealth works to promote human rights in
the world. The Harare Declaration observed: “We believe in the
 liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all
citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief,
and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by means of
free and democratic political processes in framing the society in
which he or she lives.’ The commonwealth observes how does every
member-state respond to its various issues related to human rights
and democracy; it may suspend any of them showing poor
performance in this regard. In the past, South Africa, Pakistan and
Zimbabwe were suspended on these issues.

The commonwealth also works to achieve good governance in

member-states. The Governance and Institutional Development
Division (GIDD) of the commonwealth shoulders the primary
responsibility of implementing the secretariat’s mandate on public
sector development. The Commonwealth Development Network
(CDN) facilitates sharing of information among member-
governments for good governance. Further, the Commonwealth
Centre for E-Governance works as the nodal body in the use of
information technology as a tool for strengthening good
governance.

In the CHOGM of 2003 in Abuja, Nigeria, the commonwealth

issued the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDG)’. The MDG
highlighted the following activities as priority areas for the
commonwealth in the new millennium:
1. eradicating extreme poverty and hunger;
2. achieving universal primary education;
3. promoting gender equality and empowerment of women;
4. reducing child mortality rate;
5. improving maternal health;
6. combatting HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;
7. ensuring environmental sustainability;
8. developing a global partnership for development.

Since 2003, several projects have been undertaken in the member-

states to implement the programmes highlighted by the MDG. For
instance, in the area of economy, the commonwealth tries to
alleviate poverty and strengthen economic growth in member-
states through various measures. The secretariat works to achieve
these goals through a range of programmes—at the
macroeconomic level, through advocacy, consensus-building and
policy advice; and through handson development assistance
delivered via the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation.
It provides debt management support and advice to its developing
members. It also makes efforts to strengthen the investment
climate in developing countries, particularly through promoting
investment in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The
Commonwealth Secretariat also aims at fostering private sector
development by providing assistance in the development of
policies, laws and regulatory arrangements. It believes that such
steps are necessary in an era of globalization.

Overall, it can be said that the activities of the commonwealth in

implementing the MDG and other objectives of the organization
are extremely commendable. Because of the good work of the
commonwealth in social, economic, and political sectors, several
problematic areas of its members could be successfully addressed.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in

1949 as the first military alliance after the Second World War. It
was conceived by some West European countries to combat the
fear of aggression from Germany after the Second World War,
although it eventually emerged as an anti-Soviet military
organization under the impact of the Cold War. After the
disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the
NATO has been trying to move eastward to absorb the East
European countries into the organization. The fundamental role of
the NATO is to safeguard the freedom and the security of its
member-states by political and military means. Article 5 of the
North Atlantic Treaty declares that an attack on any of the
member-states would be considered an attack on the organization,
and repelled by all members. Today, the NATO is playing an
increasingly important role in crisis management and
peacekeeping.

Origin

The ‘ghost of Hitler’ was haunting Europe for a considerable period

of time after the end of the Second World War. Consequently, on 17
March 1948, five European countries—Belgium, France, Britain,
Luxembourg and Netherlands—signed the Brussels Treaty to
create a military alliance and consolidate their defence against any
further aggression by any particular country. The Berlin blockade
by the Soviet Union was another reason behind the signing of this
treaty that is considered the precursor of the NATO. But very soon
these five countries realized that any effort at military or economic
resurgence of West Europe would not be complete without the
support of the United States, because war-ravaged West European
countries were not in a position to thwart the growing ‘threat’ of
the Soviet Union. Therefore, efforts were made to include the US
into a wider security net in Europe. The US also wanted this
security alliance in Europe to counter the growing influence of the
Soviet Union. After considerable discussion, the North Atlantic
Treaty was signed on 4 April 1949, in Washington DC, to form the
NATO. With the active engagement of the US as a founder-
member, this security organization started its journey as an anti-
Soviet military alliance under the growing impact of the Cold War.
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed by twelve countries—the US,
Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Denmark,
Luxembourg, Iceland, Norway and Portugal. In February 1952,
Greece and Turkey joined the NATO, and subsequently several
other states followed suit. After the Cold War, some of the former
‘socialist’ countries joined as well.

Membership

Starting with an initial twelve, the membership of the NATO had

come to be twenty eight in May 2009. Apart from full membership,
the organization has ‘partnership for peace’ with a number of
states who are called NATO-partners. This is a ‘symbolic
membership’ that could be converted to full membership. Box
6.4 shows the present NATO-members.

Box 6.4: NATO Member-Countries

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic,

Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey,
United Kingdom, United States
Apart from these twenty-eight member-states, the NATO had
several partners as of May 2009, as given in Box 6.5.

Box 6.5: NATO Partner-Countries

Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Malta,
Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland,
Macedonia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Twenty-six member-countries and twenty-four partner-countries

together form the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The
fifty-member EAPC is a body that helps to maintain regular
contacts between NATO- members and partners at different levels.

Structure

The internal organization of the NATO is divided into three main

structures—civilian structures, military structures, and agencies
and organizations immediately subordinate to NATO-
headquarters. The headquarters of the NATO is located in
Brussels, the capital of Belgium.
Civilian (Political) Structures

The North Atlantic Treaty, as also other agreements, outlined in

detail the process of decisionmaking within the NATO. Each of the
twenty-eight members sends a delegation or mission to the
NATO’s headquarters in Brussels. The senior permanent member
—normally a senior civil servant or an experienced ambassador—of
each delegation is known as the Permanent Representative of the
concerned country to the NATO. All the permanent representatives
together constitute the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which
has effective political authority and powers of decision-making in
the NATO. It meets at least once a week. The NAC also meets at
higher levels from time to time, involving foreign ministers,
defence ministers or heads of state or government. Major decisions
regarding the NATO’s policies are generally taken at these
meetings. However, it is noteworthy that the council enjoys equal
authority and powers of decisionmaking, and its decisions have the
same status and validity, irrespective of the level at which it meets.
NATO summits involving heads of state or government also take
crucial decisions on many complex issues, enlargement of the
organization, for instance. The meetings of the NAC are chaired by
the Secretary-General of the NATO and, when decisions have to be
taken, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and
common accord. There is no voting or decisionmaking on the basis
of majority. Each nation represented in the council, or in any of its
subordinate committees, retains complete sovereignty and
responsibility for its own decisions.

Apart from the permanent representative, a second important

member of each country’s delegation is the Military
Representative, a senior officer from each country’s armed forces.
All the military representatives together form the Military
Committee (MC) of the NATO. It recommends to the NATO’s
political authorities the measures considered necessary for
common defence of the area under the NATO’s purview. Its
principal role is to provide direction and advice on military policy
and strategy. Like the council, the military committee too keeps
meeting at a higher level of the chiefs of defence from time to time.
The chief of defence is the most senior military officer in each
nation’s armed forces. Other important civilian structures in the
NATO include Division of Political Affairs and Security Policy,
Division of Operations, Division of Defence Policy and Planning,
Division of Defence Investment, NATO Office of Security, and
NATO Office of Resources. The NATO has an elaborate network of
civilian structures which supervises all its socio-political activities.
They are located in several member-states of the organization.

The Secretary-General is the chief executive of the NATO. He is

elected for an initial four-year term, which may be extended in
exceptional cases. He chairs the NAC, as well as all other important
bodies of this orgnization. Table 6.2 shows a chronological list of
the NATO Secretaries-General.
Military Structure

The elaborate military structures of the NATO is headed by the

Military Committee (MC). Under the MC, there are several bodies
like International Military Staff (IMS), Allied Command
Operations (ACO), Allied Command Transformation (ACT), and
other NATO command and staff organizations. ACO and ACT
control a large number of commands and divisions. Bodies like the
Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE),
currently located in Mons, Belgium, and Joint Force Commands
(JFCs) in Brunssum and Naples, work under the supervision of
ACO. Joint Headquarters, Lisbon, and other rapidly deployable
corps headquarters also work under ACO. The ACT controls bodies
like the Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation (HQ SACT), Joint Warfare Centre (JWC) or NATO
School of Military. There are strategic commanders responsible to
the MC for overall direction and conduct of all military matters of
the alliance within their areas of command. Before 2003, the
Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the Supreme
Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) were the strategic
commanders. But the current arrangement is to separate
command responsibility between ACO—responsible for NATO-
operations worldwide—and ACT—responsible for transformation
and training of NATO-forces.

Table 6.2: NATO Secretaries-General Since 1952

Agencies and Organizations

The NATO has nearly fifty agencies and organizations in its main
structure, working in different important areas. These areas may
be classified under the following broad categories: (1) Logistics; (2)
Production Logistics; (3) Standardization; (4) Civil Emergency
Planning; (5) Air Traffic Management and Air Defence; (6)
Airborne Early Warning; (7) Communication and Information
Systems; (8) Electronic Warfare; (9) Meteorology; (10) Military
Oceanography; (11) Research and Technology; (12) Education and
Training; and (13) Project Offices. In each of these categories,
again, there are several agencies and organizations working in
various areas. All the different agencies and organizations under
the NATO may be divided into two types—those working in the
military and related areas, and those working in different fields to
further the aims and objectives of the NATO.

Functions of the NATO: A Critical Appraisal

Although the NATO was born out of the tensions of the Cold War,
it was not involved in any possible military activities during the
period. It had made intense military preparations to counter any
military attack on its members, but it did not get any opportunity
to engage in military warfare then. Ironically, most of the
organization’s military engagements took place only after the war.
The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in
1991 removed its de facto main adversary. This caused a strategic
re-evaluation of the NATO’s purpose, nature and functions. As part
of post-Cold War restructuring, the organization’s military
structure was reduced and reorganized. The changes brought about
by the end of the Cold War on the military balance in Europe were
duly recognized by the NATO and its members. France, which
withdrew in 1966, rejoined the NATO’s military committee in 1995,
and had since then intensified working relations with the
organization’s military structure. However, France did not rejoin
the integrated military command. It may be pointed out here that
in June 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, had
announced that France might also consider rejoining the
integrated military command of the NATO. The country had, in
fact, not always agreed to the NATO’s policies during the Cold War;
on several occasions during this period, it had openly opposed the
organization’s military ambitions during this period. After the war,
in a changed strategic and political order, France has agreed to join
the NATO’s military committee.

The NATO got involved in its first military operation after the Cold
War. In June 1993, it launched Operation Sharp Guard in former
Yugoslavia to stop the ongoing civil war. This major military
operation continued till October 1996. It provided maritime
enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against
the erstwhile Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On 28 February
1994, NATO-forces shot down four Bosnian Serb aircrafts accused
of violating a UNmandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia and
Herzegovina. NATO-air-strikes in 1994 helped bring the ethnic war
in Bosnia to an end, although it raised intense criticism of the
organization throughout the world. Russia, China and France
opposed NATO-bombings in Bosnia and Herzegovina. With the
signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement by the US, NATO, Serb,
Croatian and Bosnian leaders, ethnic war in Bosnia and
Herzegovina ended in 1995. As per the terms of the agreement, the
NATO deployed a peacekeeping force (PKF) in the region under
Operation Joint Endeavor. This force stayed in Bosnia and
Herzegovina from December 1996 to December 2004.

In March 1999, the NATO launched its first large-scale military

operations in the Kosovo conflict. It was engaged in an eleven-
week air strike called Operation Allied Force against what was then
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with a mission to stop the
crackdown on Kosovo Liberation Army led by Serbia. The conflict
ended on 11 June 1999, when Yugoslavian leader Slobodan
Milosevic agreed to accept the NATO’s demands. Bombings in
Kosovo by the NATO also invited controversies within and outside
the organization. France from within, and Russia, China and
others from outside the organization, demanded that all its
military operations must get the approval of the United Nations.
But the United States, Britain, and most other NATO-countries
opposed efforts that would require the UN Security Council to
approve the NATO’s military strikes. They claimed that this would
undermine the authority of the alliance, and would allow countries
like Russia and China to exercise their Security Council vetoes to
block NATO-operations. Such actions would jeopardize the
purposes of the NATO and its efforts in bringing peace in different
parts of the world.

The September 11 (2001) terrorist attacks on the United States

encouraged the NATO to wage a war on terrorism. The
organization has a three-stage mechanism to fight terrorism. First,
it is a permanent consultative forum where collective decisions
emerge from discussions. Second, this is backed by the NATO’s
strong military power. Third, the organization is part of an
impressive network of cooperative relations with many partners to
fight terrorism. The NATO has also engaged in a number of
initiatives—political, operational, conceptual, military and
technological—to combat the menace of terrorism. In this
direction, it functions fully in line with the international laws,
including human rights standards and humanitarian requirements.
The North Atlantic Council (NAC), the highest decision-making
body of the NATO, assumes a leading role in formulating NATO-
policies to fight terrorism. Other NATO-bodies implement the
decisions taken by NAC in this regard.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also playing an active

role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Its invovlement there is
important because this is the first commitment of the NATO
outside the Euro-Atlantic area in the organization’s sixty-year
history. Through its leadership of the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO is helping the Afghans
establish a permanent system of representative government, and a
system that would help foster self-sustaining peace and security.
The NATO took over the command and coordination of ISAF in
August 2003. Initially restricted to providing security in and
around Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, NATO-led ISAF has
gradually extended its presence and is now responsible for security
across the whole country.

In a changed international political order after the Cold War, the

NATO is trying to expand the organization through inclusion of
several former ‘socialist’ countries of Europe. In order to make this
expansion acceptable to the former ‘East Bloc’ countries of Europe,
the NATO has identified several areas other than security in a
wide-ranging programme of the organization in the post-Cold War
period. Along with security issues, the NATO is also placing
emphasis on economic development, democracy, human rights
and anti-terrorism as some of the significant areas of activity after
the Cold War. But the ‘Eastward Expansion’ of the NATO would
remain incomplete without Russia’s inclusion into the
organization. Till date, Russia has not joined the NATO as a full
member. It expressed its displeasure over NATO-air-strikes in
Bosnia in 1995 and in Serbia in 1999. Though Russia is a partner-
 country of the NATO at present, it does not, however, hesitate to
oppose the organization’s military actions. The issue of Russia’s
becoming a full member of the NATO has thus remained a point of
interest in the international political community during the post-
Cold war period.

QUESTIONS

1. Discuss the origin and significance of the NAM in international politics.

2. Do you think that the NAM is relevant in today’s world? Argue your case.
3. Analyse the composition and functions of the Commonwealth of Nations.
4. Make a critical estimate of the NATO.

7
Cold War Politics and Beyond

International politics had undergone dramatic changes after the

end of the Second World War. The domination of Europe in
international politics had diminished, and new non-European
powers emerged. Until the Second World War, several European
states such as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal and
Netherlands determined and controlled events in international
politics. But the Second World War changed everything. Europe
was most affected, as the war was fought in that continent. The
long war damaged the economy of most European nations, and
when it finally ended in 1945, these nations were devastated
politically and economically. Europe, the centre of attention and
power in international politics for a long time, failed to retain its
former glory after the war. Instead, two non-European powers, the
United States of America (US) and the Soviet Union, emerged as
the two most powerful nations in the world.

It could be argued here that both the US and the Soviet Union had
participated in the Second World War, and shared the pain, agony
and, to some extent, devastation of the war with the European
nations. How did they, then, emerge as centres of power after the
war? It should be noted here that the US entered the war against
Germany in 1942, three years after it had started. The US was not
hit hard by the war. On the contrary, with a very strong economy, it
pumped up large sums of money and arms in support of the Allied
Powers during the war. It also shed its long-held isolationism,
practised to avoid active engagement in world politics, to
participate in the Second World War in favour of the Allied powers.
Since, unlike Europe, the US was not severely affected by the war,
it could emerge as a superpower after the war with its very strong
industrial, economic and military bases. It was the world’s first
nuclear power and also the first to use nuclear weapons during the
war in 1945.

Soviet Union, on the other hand, was hit hard by the Second World
War. Hitler attacked Soviet Union in 1941, and heavy war broke
out in the Soviet territory. Millions of people died there, and the
economy was also affected. But how did the Soviet Union overcome
damages inflicted by the war and emerge as a superpower after the
war? A few points could be cited as reasons behind this
turnaround. First, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the
world with a huge territory. The attack by Hitler could not shake
the entire country. It was limited mainly to the European parts.
Other areas of this vast country remained unaffected by this attack.
Although Hitler’s attack gave a jolt to the Soviet economy, it could
not paralyse the industrial and economic infrastructure of this vast
land, as it did to many small European nations. Second, under
Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union emerged as an industrialized state,
with particular emphasis on heavy industries. A sound industrial
base helped the country emerge as a military power as well, which,
in turn, paved the way towards its becoming a super power. Third,
in 1949, within four years of the end of the Second World War,
Soviet Union became a nuclear power, the second in the world
after the US. The possession of nuclear weapons certainly allowed
it to gain superpower status. Finally, the weakness of Europe as a
whole, and the division of Germany after the war, also helped
Soviet Union emerge as a superpower in international politics.

The world thus witnessed the emergence of two superpowers, the

US and the Soviet Union, after the Second World War. Their
possession of nuclear weapons made them more powerful than the
earlier European states, which were only major powers with
conventional weapons. During the course of the war, they helped
each other. But when the war was over, they began to oppose each
other in order to gain supremacy in world politics. Their rivalry
during the next four and a half decades gave birth to the Cold War
in international politics.

ORIGIN OF THE COLD WAR

The two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, started to

contradict each other over the issue of reconstruction of Europe
after the Second World War. The US chalked out a grandiose plan
to revive the Western part of a shattered Europe. Immediately after
the war, the US President Harry S. Truman sought the approval of
the US Congress for providing an assistance of $400 million to
Greece and Turkey. The foreign policy objective of the Truman
administration, however, was to contain the spread of communism
in West Europe. This objective was known as the Truman Doctrine.
Under the $400 million package intended originally for Greece and
Turkey, other nations of West Europe were also covered gradually.
The Truman Doctrine paid special assistance to Italy and France,
as they had a long history of socialist inclination, to prevent them
from falling to communism. If the Truman Doctrine was a grand
but indirect foreign policy strategy to contain a communist Soviet
Union, the Marshall Plan, unveiled by Truman’s Secretary of State
George Marshall, was more direct and open in its aspirations. It
wanted to bring the whole of West Europe under American
influence through the means of economic diplomacy. The Soviet
Union became apprehensive both about the Truman Doctrine and
the ‘Marshall Plan’. The Soviet leaders found in these plans the
American design to make West Europe a satellite of the US. To
counter the US design, the Soviet Union started to give huge aids
to the eastern part of Europe, which was geographically closer to
the Soviet Union, to bring it into the Soviet fold. Germany, which
was divided into four zones (under French, British, American and
Soviet occupation) after the Second World War by the Potsdam
Agreement, was also influenced by the two superpowers, and was
ultimately divided into two parts—the Federal Republic of
Germany (or West Germany) and the German Democratic
Republic (or East Germany). Gradually, the whole of Europe
became ‘divided’ into an East bloc, controlled by the Soviet Union,
and a West bloc, controlled by the US. This ‘division’ of Europe was
known as the East-West Divide. Each of the two superpowers
exercised enormous economic and political influence over their
blocs in Europe and tried to prevent the other from gaining any
foothold there. The Cold War originated.

Apart from political rivalry for establishing supremacy in world

politics, the two superpowers had pronounced ideological
differences. The Soviet Union, which was officially known as the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was born after the 1917
Bolshevik Revolution. It was the first socialist country in the world
which adopted the socialist principles of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels in its state system and economy. On the other hand, the
United States of America followed liberal democratic principles in
its state policy and economy. These two ideologies (Marxist
socialism and liberal democratic) are contradictory to each other.
When both the Soviet Union and the US emerged as superpowers
after the Second World War, they began to suspect each other of
ideological expansionism. The US had the fear that the Soviets
would spread socialism, which had become quite popular in the
world, to attract other nations to its bloc. The Soviets doubted
American designs of providing economic aid to different countries
as ploys to bring them to the US camp. While the Soviet Union
labelled the US as a ‘neocolonial power’ trying to dominate others
through the ‘politics of aid’ and the appealing ideals of liberal
democracy, the Americans described the Soviets as ‘social
imperialists’ trying to dominate the world through the attractive
and popular ideology of socialism. Thus, the cold war of mud-
slinging and psychological conflicts between the two superpowers
owed their origin to ideological differences as well.

The Cold War was no real war between the superpowers, although
tensions and war-like situations always engulfed the US and the
Soviet Union. Every political, economic, diplomatic and
propaganda initiative of one superpower was matched with a
similar or more powerful initiative by the other. As a consequence,
the two superpowers and their satellites were always tense and on
high alert. The Cold War was riddled with the possibilities of a real
war, although that did not happen during its span of four and a
half decades, from 1945 to 1990. With the beginning of the war, the
Balance of Power system, that existed in international politics for
three centuries, also came to an end. Instead of five or six major
powers controlling international politics under this system, now
only two superpowers began to exercise their control in world
politics. The East-West divide, created by superpower rivalry,
made international politics clearly bipolar from 1945. This
bipolarity co-existed with the Cold War in international relations
until 1990.

EVOLUTION OF THE COLD WAR

The Cold War originated immediately after the Second World War
in Europe. Gradually, it spread over to other continents. For a
better and convenient understanding of the evolution of Cold War,
a decade-wise analysis may be helpful.

Cold War in the 1940s

After the Second World War, differences escalated between the two
superpowers over issues like the reconstruction of Europe, future
of Germany, and establishing supremacy in international politics.
The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan aimed at perpetuating
American supremacy in Europe. The Soviet Union did not sit idle.
To counter these plans, it extended financial and security
assistance to East European countries to attract them to the Soviet
lobby. Soon Europe was ‘divided’ into two blocs—one led by the US
and the other by the Soviet Union. By 1947, the Cold War had
spread its roots in the continent of Europe. The US policy of
containment of communism began in Europe with the Truman
Doctrine, and was subsequently reinforced by the Marshall Plan.
The Soviets devised their own strategy of expanding socialism to
East Europe through financing and militarizing the East Bloc. The
US took a major initiative of providing a security ring for west
European countries by the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) in 1949. It was created to thwart any Soviet
move to militarily dominate any Western Bloc country in Europe.
It was agreed by the founding nations that all NATO-members
would militarily help any member(s) attacked by an aggressor. In
1953, the Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact to counter the
NATO and provide security guarantee to East European countries.
The Cold War had got firmly entrenched in Europe by the
beginning of the next decade.
 Cold War in the 1950s

The Cold War was not limited to Europe only. At the beginning of
the new decade, with the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950,
the Cold War spread to Asia. After the Second World War, Korea
was divided into a North Korea under Soviet influence, and a South
Korea under American patronage. Though the two superpowers
established their influence over the two Koreas after the Second
World War, they openly opposed each other over Korea during the
Korean War. On 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea.
The US demanded stern action against North Korea, the
‘aggressor’, and passed a resolution at the UN Security Council—in
the absence of the Soviet Union—to initiate collective security
measures against it. But when the Soviets returned to the council,
the US and its Western allies moved to the General Assembly and
passed the Uniting for Peace Resolution to continue pressures on
North Korea. They did it to avoid any Soviet veto in the Security
Council. The Soviet Union opposed North Korea being identified as
the ‘aggressor’ and promised to help its communist friend in the
war. Another communist nation in Asia, the People’s Republic of
China, joined the war for North Korea in November 1950, making
the scenario more complicated. The UN-sponsored mechanism of
collective security did not succeed in the Korean War (for details
see Chapter 5), and the two superpowers issued threats and
counterthreats to contain each other in the Korean War. Finally, a
cease-fire was declared in 1953, but the Korean War had, by this
time, brought to light the bitter rivalry between the two
superpowers for control over international politics.

The Warsaw Pact was created in 1953, under the leadership of the
Soviet Union, to provide security assistance to the East Bloc
countries. It was mainly a security treaty that contained the
provision that if any country signing the treaty was attacked by
others, all nations under it would come to the rescue of the
attacked country. Through the treaty, Soviet Union, in effect,
extracted the right to send its military to other East Bloc countries,
because the Soviets had the strongest military in the region. Soon
the Soviets got the opportunity to send its military to Hungary in
1956 to crush the Hungarian uprising for more democratic rights.
Trouble started in Hungary in the spring of 1956, when several
thousand students and intellectuals demonstrated against
repressive domestic policies and demanded more freedom. They
wanted Imre Nagy, who was Prime Minister of Hungary from 1953
to 1955, to be appointed the head of a new government, because
Nagy was pro-liberal. He was also supported by the US. Soviet
troops arrived in Hungary within hours after the trouble began,
and opened fire on the demonstrators. But the movement for
liberal policies gradually got popular support. Under public
pressure, Nagy was appointed the Premier on 24 October 1956. But
the next day, Janos Kadar, a Soviet-backed communist leader who
opposed the movement, was appointed as the First Secretary—a
powerful political post—of the Communist Party, to
counterbalance the appointment of Nagy. By early November,
Soviet troops had started suppressing the movement ruthlessly,
and Premier Nagy appealed to the Security Council for the
withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary. The US and Britain
supported his appeal, but the Council failed to act due to a Soviet
veto. The US camp then took the matter to the General Assembly
and appealed for a settlement under the Uniting for Peace
Resolution. Soon after, massive attacks by the Soviet military on
the supporters of liberal policies and Nagy followed, and Imre
Nagy had to flee the country. Subsequently, Kadar was made the
Head of the Government by the Soviet Union, and Nagy and his
supporters were executed. The Hungarian uprising remained a
history of bitter Cold War politics between the two superpowers.

The same year, the Cold War shifted to Africa with the Suez Canal
crisis. On 26 July 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt,
announced that his government would nationalize the Suez Canal
Company. Britain and France protested this decision because they
had a stake in the Suez Canal through their oil and shipping
companies. Israel also warned that the proposed nationalization
would violate the Jordan-Israel armistice demarcation line. A Suez
Canal Users Association was formed in London, mainly at the
initiative of Britain and France, to stall the plans of nationalization.
Hectic diplomatic activities also started and Britain and France
urged the Security Council to take up the matter. From late
September that year, the council called several meetings, and the
UN Secretary-General met British, French and Egyptian leaders to
break the deadlock. But nothing substantial happened. When
Nasser, backed by the Soviet Union, stuck to his plans, Britain and
France started air attack on Egypt in late October. The Council
accepted a Yugoslav proposal, mooted at the behest of Soviet
Union, to call an emergency meeting of the General Assembly,
under the Uniting for Peace Resolution, to restrain Britain and
France. On 15 November 1956, a United Nations Emergency Force
(UNEF) was sent to Egypt. By that time, a cease-fire was achieved,
mainly at the initiative of the US. But the Suez Canal could not be
reopened for commercial ships before late April 1957, because
Egypt and UN authorities were working on the future control over
the Canal. In accordance with an Egyptian government declaration
on 24 April 1957, individual users of the Canal had to work out
arrangements with Egypt for right to passage in the Canal, which,
however, was denied to Israeli ships. Tension persisted in the
region and the UNEF stayed back in Egypt. The superpowers were
seriously involved in the crisis. It was again the issue of the West
Bloc versus the East Bloc in the Suez Canal crisis.

The superpower rivalry did not remain limited to planet earth only;
it reached outer space in the late 1950s. Both the US and the Soviet
Union launched ambitious space programmes during this period,
which included spy satellites for monitoring enemy activities.
Satellite-controlled missiles were also developed by the Soviets in
1957. This alarmed the US, who developed similar weapons a year
later. The advanced missile programmes of the two nuclear
superpowers escalated the Cold War tensions. At large, the 1950s
witnessed more intense rivalry between the superpowers in
different parts of the world.

Cold War in the 1960s

The decade began with serious crises over issues like shooting
down of a US spy aircraft by the Soviet Union and problems in
Congo. In 1960, the Soviets shot down an American spy aircraft
called U-2 flying over the Soviet territory. A huge uproar was made
by the US over the issue, and a summit meeting between the Soviet
leader Nikita Kruschev and the American President Dwight
Eisenhower was cancelled mid-way. The issue further embittered
the relationship between the two superpowers. The same year,
Congo in Africa faced a sudden political crisis when the Belgians,
the colonizers of Congo, finally handed over power to the
Congolese on 30 June 1960. On 11 July 1960, Katanga, the richest
province in Congo, declared secession. This led to a civil war in
Congo, and Belgium rushed back its troops to protect its citizens
living in Congo. The situation turned worse when South Kasai,
another Congolese province, declared its intention to secede from
Congo. Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba appealed for military
help from Soviet Union, China, as also from Ghana, a neighbouring
country. The Soviet Union was eager to help, promptimg the US to
support anti-Lumumba forces within Congo. President Kasavubu
of Congo appealed to the United Nations (UN) for help, and the
UN Secretary-General took special initiative to send a
peacekeeping team—the United Nations Operations in Congo
(UNUC)—to the troubled country. President Kasavubu and
Premier Lumumba gradually fell out over the issue of bringing
peace to Congo, as Lumumba was dismissed by Kasavubu. The civil
war continued and the ONUC could hardly restore peace in the
country. When the news of Lumumba’s murder, allegedly by rival
ethnic forces backed by the US, arrived in January 1961, the civil
war reached its peak. The ONUC had increased its forces with
substantial contribution from the Indian military. The UN also
sent a large number of civilians to negotiate peace. Gradually, the
situation in Congo improved, and in August 1961, a Government of
National Unity was formed under UN supervision. The ONUC
continued its presence in Congo. The Congo crisis once again
brought to light the severe political antagonism between the two
super powers.

In 1962, tensions escalated again over the Cuban Missile issue. In

Cuba, a South American country geographically close to the United
States, a communist government under the leadership of Fidel
Castro came to power in 1959. A communist country next door
irked the US, while Castro remained apprehensive about an
American attack. Therefore, relations between the two countries
were hostile from the very beginning. In the summer of 1962, the
Castro-government allowed the Soviet Union to install military
bases on Cuban soil with medium-range ballistic missiles. An
alarmed US protested and complained that the ballistic missiles
were targeted at the US. The Americans also called for withdrawal
of Soviet military bases from Cuba. US President John F. Kennedy
warned the Soviets in October 1962 for launching offensive
missiles in Cuba. Soviet President Kruschev denied that the
purpose of the missiles was to attack the US. As a security measure,
the US announced that it would search all westward-bound vessels
within 800 miles of Cuba. The US Ambassador to the United
Nations showed the Security Council photographic proofs of Soviet
missiles in Cuba. Kruschev sent positive messages to the
Americans in late October, stating his intentions to withdraw
military bases from Cuba. The American President reduced the
800-miles embargo to 500 miles. President Kruschev repeated his
promise to withdraw but wanted an assurance from the US that it
would not attack Cuba in future. The Soviets also wanted the
removal of American missiles from Turkey installed in the late
1950s. President Kennedy agreed to both the Soviet demands after
repeated negotiations between Soviet and American leaders and
able mediation by the UN Secretary-General U Thant. President
Kruschev withdrew all Soviet weapons by the end of 1962, and the
US removed its weapons from Turkey by April 1963. An imminent
clash between the superpowers could be avoided.

In 1963–64, the US became militarily engaged in South Vietnam,

trying to prevent a takeover by the communists from North
Vietnam. The American involvement in Vietnam actually started in
1961, when President Kennedy sent an ‘observer’ team to report
what was happening there. One of the ‘reporters’ in a White Paper
of 1961 asked for more military and financial aid to South Vietnam
to prevent a takeover of the whole Vietnam by the Viet Cong, the
communists. North Vietnam wanted to unite the two Vietnams
under a communist rule. The Americans disliked this design and
sent troops to prevent a military takeover. In early 1965, situations
in Vietnam worsened with troops from the allegedly Soviet-backed
North Vietnam crossing the 17th parallel and attacking South
Vietnam. American President Johnson ordered the continuous
bombing of military installations in North Vietnam. The American
actions led to heavy civilian casualties. The US decided to retain its
troops in Vietnam due to the persistent fear of a communist
takeover of the entire country. But the American leaders had to
ultimately withdraw troops from Vietnam amidst severe domestic
and international pressures. But it was engaged in Vietnam
throughout the 1960s. During the 1960s, Vietnam witnessed a
tense Cold War between the two superpowers.
It must be noted here that threats and counter-threats were used
by both superpowers during the Cold War period as deterrent
techniques to serve their purposes. The Cuban Missile Crisis
remained a good example of this deterrent technique used by the
superpowers. The Soviets threatened the US with missiles in Cuba,
to extract a promise from the Americans that they would not attack
Cuba in future. This threat served the Soviet purpose. The US, on
the other hand, warned the Soviets of dire consequences for its
‘adventures’ in Cuba, to secure the withdrawal of Soviet military
bases from Cuba. Threats, counter-threats, appeals, diplomatic
negotiations—all methods were in fact applied by the super powers
as per the demands of the situation, during the Cold War. They
also talked about reduction of arms. After the Cuban Missile Crisis
was over, the US and the Soviet Union signed, in 1963, a Limited
Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) to put a moratorium on nuclear tests.
Although the LTBT was not successful in reducing Cold War
tensions, it was nevertheless a timely attempt to achieve peace.

A Hungarian-type uprising for democratic rights emerged in

Czechoslovakia, a Warsaw Pact state, in 1968. This time, the Soviet
military took no chance and crushed the uprising at the outset. The
US and its Western allies condemned the Soviet military action in
Czechoslovakia and called the Soviets ‘social imperialists’. For
some time in 1968 and thereafter, Czechoslovakia remained the
hot spot of Cold War rivalry between superpowers.

Cold War in the 1970s

The United States, it appeared, fell behind the Soviet Union in the
Cold War at the beginning of the 1970s. The Arab countries,
backed by the latter, stopped supply of petroleum to the US in 1973
because of America’s support to Israel on the Palestine issue. As a
result, the US economy became a bit shaky. In 1975, a US-backed
government collapsed in South Vietnam, allegedly due to Soviet
manipulations. Further, the collapse of the Shah government in
Iran, which was actively patronized by the US, put the Americans
in an uncomfortable position in the Cold War. Encouraged by these
American setbacks, Soviet Union decided to send its military to
Afghanistan in 1979 to install a Moscow-backed government there.
Although Soviet Union was initially successful in its mission,
sending troops to Afghanistan proved to be disastrous for it later.
In its Cold War political calculations, the country deemed it wise to
control Afghanistan in order to effectively influence South and
South-West Asia. It brought down the Hafizullah Amin
government and installed the Babrak Karmal government in
Afghanistan in accordance with its plans. The US and the Western
Bloc were alarmed by the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. They
made the presence of the Soviet Army there an issue to corner the
Soviets in almost all international bodies. Moreover, the Americans
began to help anti-Soviet dissident groups in Afghanistan with
money and arms with a view to topple the Babrak Karmal
government. The Talibans were among the dissident groups that
allegedly received American help at that time.

The Soviet Union had to sustain its army in Afghanistan in order to

maintain its lead in the Cold War. But it was beyond the
calculations of Soviet leaders that they would have to sustain
Soviet army in Afghanistan for a prolonged period. The initial plan
was to install a Moscow-backed government in Afghanistan and
gradually withdraw troops. But, as events turned out, several rebel
groups opposing Soviet presence surfaced throughout Afghanistan
and, backed by the US, got engaged in armed insurgencies against
the Soviet army. Now, Soviet Union was caught in an unenviable
situation. An early withdrawal of troops would mean the fall of the
Karmal government and the victory of the rebel groups supported
by the US. This would be detrimental to Soviet interests in the Cold
War. Therefore, Soviet leaders decided to retain their army in
Afghanistan. But it proved to be a very costly decision, both in
material as well as in political terms. Maintaining a large army in
Afghanistan was a huge burden on the Soviet exchequer. Moreover,
as the stay became longer, the morale of the army kept sinking all
the more, because many soldiers were being killed by the rebel
groups. Politically, it became an embarrassment for the Soviet
Union to patronize its troops in an independent sovereign country
for a long period. Therefore, the Soviet plan to send its army to
Afghanistan in 1979 was indeed a costly mistake. The Soviet Union
finally withdrew its military from Afghanistan in 1989, ten years
after it was sent. But by that time, the stay had drained the Soviet
economy, the confidence of the army, and the charisma of the
Soviet Union as a superpower.
 Cold War in the 1980s

The Cold War reached its peak at the beginning of the 1980s due to
the presence of the Soviet army in Afghanistan. American
President Ronald Reagan, who assumed office in 1981, decided to
increase the US Defence budget hugely, so as to counter the
activities of the Soviet Union in more effective ways. Reagan
wanted to give a lead to the Americans in the Cold War. He
launched the ‘star wars’ programme that aimed at augmenting the
production and the deployment of satellite-guided ballistic missiles
and other modern weapons. The US was also engaged in providing
support to the rebel groups in Afghanistan. The clandestine
presence of the US in Afghanistan through dollars and guns
escalated the Cold War to a great extent. The Americans also
extended support to dissident groups opposed to Soviet-installed
governments in Angola and Nicaragua. The US support to rebel
groups in Angola and Nicaragua led to civil wars in these two
countries. The Reagan administration took it as a mission to
oppose Soviet-backed governments in every part of the world. As a
consequence, Cold War tensions and rivalry intensified in the first
half of the decade.

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev assumed power in Soviet Union. He

showed more interest in reviving a decaying Soviet economy and
liberating the closed, party-controlled Soviet society, than in
continuing the Cold War. Gorbachev had reasons to depart from
his predecessors. When he assumed office, the Soviet economy was
in very bad shape due to the over-zealous policies framed by
former Soviet leaders to stay ahead of the US in the Cold War. The
heavy Soviet Defence budget was a huge burden on the economy.
Added to it was the prolonged presence of the Soviet troops in
Afghanistan, which also cost the economy to a significant extent.
Soviet Union, Gorbachev realized, was a military superpower, but
not an economic one. The poor condition of the Soviet economy
had its impact in the social sectors as well. People were getting
restive, and demands for an open society and polity were gaining
grounds. Consequently, Gorbachev concentrated more on
economic and social reforms. He initiated Perestroika and
Glasnost, two policies for economic and social rejuvenation. He
also ordered the return of Soviet troops from Afghanistan,
signaling his intention to end the Cold War. By 1985–86, signs of
the end of the Cold War, because of Soviet disinterest to continue
it, became apparent.

Therefore, if the first half of the 1980s witnessed escalated Cold

War tensions, the second half was marked with the beginning of
the end of the war. Gorbachev’s policies of Perestroika and
Glasnost brought sweeping changes in Soviet Union. Although
these were domestic policies, they had far-reaching impact on the
East Bloc countries as well. Under the influences of these two
policies, demands for an open economy and an open society
gradually strengthened in East Europe. Perestroika paved the way
for the introduction of an open, market-oriented economy, first in
the Soviet Union, and later in other East Bloc countries. Glasnost
allowed freedom of speech and expression, right to self-
determination by all nationalities, and accommodation of different
kinds of views, communist or non-communist. Under its impact,
demands for multi-party democracy and separate states for
different ethnic communities emerged. As a consequence, the one-
party system broke down in the Soviet Union and other parts of
East and Central Europe. Nationalism based on ethnicity, dormant
so far, also surfaced. Soviet Union disintegrated into fifteen new
independent countries. Some other East Bloc countries like
Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia also disintegrated. With the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, there was no superpower to
continue the Cold War, and the four and a half decade long Cold
War finally came to an end in 1991.

CAUSES OF THE END OF THE COLD WAR

The Cold War continued in international politics for a long time

due to the desire of both the super powers—the US and the Soviet
Union—to establish ideological and political supremacy all over the
world. But when the latter started showing its disinterest in
continuing with it from the mid-1980s, the war lost its intensity.
From 1985—this is when Gorbachev became the supreme leader of
the country—Soviet Union concentrated more on domestic
economic and political reforms than on continuing with war. As
said earlier, Gorbachev initiated two policies after assuming power
—the Glasnost and the Perestroika, which, in the long run, became
instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War. ‘Glasnost’
means ‘open air’ in its nearest English translation. Gorbachev
wanted to introduce this sense of openness into the Soviet society
and politics, which were considered to be rigid and closed. So far,
freedom of speech and expression were believed to be absent in the
Soviet society. There was very little scope for constructive
criticism, for opposing political views in a one-party system. The
party bureaucracy exercised high degree of vigilance in every
sphere of social and political life in order to silence criticism and to
punish the ‘critics’. There was a sense of fear everywhere. The
media in the Soviet Union was a puppet in the hands of the party
bureaucracy. Under Glasnost, freedom of speech and expression,
in the truest sense of the term, was allowed to the Soviet people.
For the first time in Soviet history, people could speak out without
fear. For the first time, a different political opinion was not
considered a crime. Soviet media was also allowed, under Glasnost,
to operate outside state-control. As a result, different news and
views, other than those wished by the government, started to reach
the Soviet society. The free media indulged in constructive
criticism. With the permission given by the Gorbachev-
administration for the use of satellite television in the country, the
world reached the homes of the Soviet people. One could now
easily feel an air of openness around them. Under the impact of the
Glasnost, all kinds of change took place in the Soviet society. Free
speech and free media allowed distressed voices, suppressed so far,
to speak against party bureaucracy. Criticism was no longer
drowned in fear. Different political groups started to emerge, and
people started asserting their right to self-determination. Glasnost
paved the way for the creation of a liberal society and a multi-party
democracy, and the end of the one-party rule was imminent. It also
allowed different ethnic communities living in the Soviet Union to
express their demands. Nationalism based on ethnicity gained
strength, and demands for separate states became very prominent.
Non-Russian nationalities asserted their rights to self-
determination and refused to be ruled by the Russians. As a result,
Soviet Union disintegrated gradually and peacefully into fifteen
independent states in 1991, twelve of which formed the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Like Glasnost, Perestroika too had a far-reaching impact.

‘Perestroika’, in the nearest English translation, means economic
reforms, something which Gorbachev initiated to ‘open’ the Soviet
economy. By the middle of the 1980s, when Gorbachev assumed
office, the Soviet economy was in poor shape due to burdens of
Cold War military and aid expenses to live up to a superpower
status. But during the long period of the Cold War, the Soviet
Union could not develop its industrial infrastructure in the modern
sense of the term. Since the tenure of Stalin, almost all Soviet
leaders concentrated mainly on heavy industries that could
support weapons-related industries. So, modern industries like IT
(information technology)-based sunrise industry, electronics or
consumer goods industry did not develop much in the Soviet
Union. The country also lagged behind in international trade. It
had substantial trade relations with the East Bloc countries and
some other ‘friendly’ countries like India. But these countries did
not have sound economic bases. Moreover, it had practically no
trade relation with the industrially and technologically developed
West Bloc countries. Soviet earnings from international trade were,
therefore, negligible. The ‘closed’ nature of the Soviet economy and
absence of trade relations with the industrial world also
contributed towards negligence of modern industrial
infrastructures in the Soviet Union. Added to these were the
burdens of maintaining a superpower status and the Cold War.
Military expenses soared as the Soviet Union tried to maintain its
superpower status through its very strong military power. But the
Soviet economy was becoming increasingly unable to shoulder this
burden. It was in disarray.

Perestroika aimed at reviving the Soviet economy and putting it

alongside the mainstream world economy. Gorbachev freed the
Soviet economy from its ‘closed’ state and opened it up to the
world. Private business was allowed, foreign companies permitted
to enter the Soviet Union, and foreign investments welcomed. The
‘open’ economy attracted investments from American and Western
European multinational corporations since the huge Soviet market
had great investment potential. Gradually, Soviet economy was
transformed from a closed socialist-type economy to an open
market-oriented economy. The arrival of American and Western
investments to the Soviet market in turn softened the political
outlook of these countries towards the Soviet Union. Economic
interests gradually helped to weaken Cold War political rivalry.
Therefore, the introduction of liberal market economy in Soviet
Union under the impact of Perestroika contributed significantly
towards the end of the Cold War.

While it is generally agreed that Gorbachev’s policies, including

Glasnost and Perestroika, were noteworthy factors behind the end
of the Cold War, the answer to the most important question—‘Why
Gorbachev showed his disinclination to continue the Cold War?’—
would be manifold. First, the Soviet economy was in shambles
during the mid-1980s, when Gorbachev assumed power and was in
no way capable of continuing the Cold War. Gorbachev was quick
to realize this and had to signal the end of the war. Second, it could
be assumed that the ‘star wars’ strategy of American President
Ronald Reagan had de-motivating effects on the Soviet Union.
Reagan’s stupendous expenses on ‘star wars’ took the US far ahead
of the Soviet Union in the Cold War in the early 1980s. Gorbachev
realized that it would be impossible to match American expenses
on Cold War because of Soviet engagements in Afghanistan and
the poor shape of the Soviet economy. So, he withdrew Soviet
Union from the Cold War. Third, the closed, incapacitated Soviet
economy would have in any case crumbled, with or without the
onus of the Cold War. This desperate situation led Gorbachev to
initiate Perestroika to instil life in the Soviet economy and
discontinue the Cold War. After the end of the Cold War, a
tendency towards unipolarity in international politics could be
observed.

ETHNICITY AND NATIONALISM IN EAST EUROPE

Under the influence of Glasnost and Perestroika, winds of change

started to blow in East Europe before the end of the Cold War. The
right to self-determination of the people, suppressed so far under a
closed political system, began to receive political support.
Demands from different ethnic communities for a separate state
started to emerge consequently. The whole of East Europe
witnessed ethnic nationalism immediately before and after the
Cold War. Under the impact of people’s demands for a separate
statehood, several new states were created in East and Central
Europe, and the map of Europe changed. Nationalistic movements
in East and Central Europe were noteworthy developments in the
post-Cold War politics of Europe. This section will analyse ethnic
nationalism in different parts of Europe after the Cold War.
 Ethnic Nationalism in Former Czechoslovakia

After the Second World War, Czechoslovakia emerged as a socialist

state and signed the Warsaw Pact under the influence of the Soviet
Union. Like other East Bloc countries, Czechoslovakia too followed
Soviet political and economic models based on socialist principles.
But, under the impact of Glasnost and Perestroika, winds of
change also arrived in Czechoslovakia. From the early 1980s,
resentment against one-party rule started to grow. Although
similar resentment had been witnessed earlier, in 1968, when
movements for democratic rights were scuttled by the Soviet
military, the situation was different during the 1980s, due to the
pervasive influence of the two policies. By 1989, when there were
clear indications that the Cold War was nearing an end, the two
principal ethnic groups in Czechoslovakia, the Czechs and the
Slovaks, had started raising demands for the end of the one-party
rule. This demand gradually gained strength and the movement for
ending one-party rule spread throughout the country. Sensing the
popular mood, the communist government in Czechoslovakia
decided to hand over power to a non-communist government in a
peaceful manner and resigned.

During the movement for democracy—and for an end to one-party

rule—a Civic Forum was formed in the Czech-dominated northern
part, under the leadership of Vaclav Havel, a noted writer, political
activist and supporter of reforms in Czechoslovakia. In the Slovak-
dominated south, another political organization, Public Against
Violence (PAV) was formed. In December 1989, the Czechoslovak
Parliament declared Havel as the new president of the country. He
became the first non-communist president since the Second World
War. The transformation from a communist to a non-communist
government in Czechoslovakia was smooth and without any
bloodshed. This peaceful transition later came to be known as the
Velvet Revolution—a testimony of higher levels of political
consciousness among the people of Czechoslovakia.

General elections were held in Czechoslovakia in June 1990. The

Civic Forum in the northern part and the PAV in the southern part
won the elections with huge margins. In July the same year, the
Parliament of Czechoslovakia re-elected Havel as the president.
Havel appointed Marian Calfa, a former communist leader, as the
prime minister. The new government initiated economic reform
programmes in the country. From a state-controlled economy,
Czechoslovakia rapidly moved towards privatization. But this rapid
transition created many economic and social problems. Poverty,
unemployment, economic inequality, inflation escalated to
unprecedented levels. In 1991, the rate of inflation reached an
astronomical 58 per cent. As a consequence, social unrest also
grew. The Slovak ethnic community blamed the Czech leadership
for maintaining a huge economic disparity between the Czechs and
the Slovaks.

In a multi-ethnic Czechoslovakia, the two principal ethnic

communities were the Czechs and the Slovaks. They comprised 67
per cent of the total population. Between the two, the Czechs were
a huge majority with 51 per cent of the total population. The
Slovaks made 16 per cent of the population and the remaining 33
per cent comprised many nationalities like the Germans,
Ukrainians, Hungarians and Bohemians. However, due to their
numerical superiority, the Czechs were the dominant ethnic
community with an overwhelming presence in the social,
economic, and political sectors. The Slovaks were always resentful
of the Czech domination, and they expressed it on several
occasions. However, Czechoslovakia survived as a nation on the
basis of reconciliation between the two principal ethnic
communities under the communist regime.

After the elections in 1990, poverty and unemployment rose

sharply in the Slovak region. In 1991, unemployment reached 13
percent in the Slovak region, but at the same time it was 2.7 per
cent in the Czech region. This resulted in increased frustration and
resentment against the Czechs among the Slovak people. The
Slovaks alleged that the rich and developed Czech region was
enjoying all the benefits of economic reforms. To remove this
economic disparity, they demanded a separate state for
themselves. Thus, ethnic nationalism in the Slovak region
concentrated mainly around economic issues. President Havel
tried his best to meet the demands of the Slovaks within the
constitutional framework of Czechoslovakia. But the growing
Slovak nationalism did not relent from its demand for a separate
state. The Czechoslovak Parliament gradually agreed on the
demand for a separate state for the Slovaks.

Another general election took place in Czechoslovakia in June

1992, this time mainly on the issue of two separate states for the
Czechs and the Slovaks. In the Czech region, the conservative Civil
Democratic Party (CDP) won the elections. Vaclav Klaus, the
leader of the CDP, was a staunch supporter of market economy. In
the Slovak region, Vladimir Meciar’s Movement for a Democratic
Slovakia (MDS) won convincingly. President Havel called Klaus
and Meciar after the elections to decide the future of
Czechoslovakia. Meciar, a hard-core Slovak nationalist, stuck to
the demand of a separate state for the Slovak people, a demand
that also helped him win the election. In July 1992, the Slovak
National Assembly, the regional Legislature of the Slovaks,
declared sovereign existence for the Slovak area. In the National
Parliament, Slovak parliamentarians opposed another term for
President Havel, who was a Czech. Havel failed to muster sufficient
majority for another term as president and resigned from office.

Meanwhile, after several rounds of discussion, Klaus and Meciar

decided that Czechoslovakia would be split into two states. On 31
December 1992, two separate states were born out of the former
Czechoslovakia—the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Ethno-
nationalism, generated by economic disparity, was the reason
behind the birth of two new nations in East Europe. But the
disintegration of Czechoslovakia was unique in the sense that it
was totally based on discussions and consensus, without any
bloodshed. In Czechoslovakia, the aims and aspirations of two
principal nationalities were met successfully through peaceful
negotiations. This showed the extremely advanced political culture
of the people of former Czechoslovakia. The two new nations,
Czech Republic and Slovakia, have now joined the European
mainstream and are striving for increased economic developments.
They are also engaged in constructive cooperation among
themselves.

Ethnic Nationalism in Former Yugoslavia

Unlike Czechoslovakia, ethnic nationalist movements in former

Yugoslavia were not at all peaceful. Different ethnic communities
in Yugoslavia were engaged in bloody civil wars after the
breakdown of the socialist regime. However, ethnic problems in
Yugoslavia started much earlier, mainly after the death of Josip
Broz Tito. In order to understand ethnic problems in Yugoslavia, it
is necessary to know the demographic and socio-economic
characters of this former socialist country. After the Second World
War, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was created with six
republics: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro,
Serbia and Slovenia. Under Serbia, there were two autonomous
regions: Vojvodina and Kosovo. Before and during the early
periods of the Second World War, from 1918 to 1941, Yugoslavia
was under a monarchical system. During 1941–42, Yugoslavia was
under Nazi control; a royal government in exile was created in
early 1943. The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, proclaimed by
Josip Broz Tito and recognized by the Allied powers, came into
being in mid-1943, during the Second World War. After the war
was over in 1945, Tito established his authority, and the FRY was
finally proclaimed. The FRY initially followed the Soviet model and
became a socialist state. Tito was first the Prime Minister, and later
the President of the FRY. He was the supreme leader of Yugoslavia
for thirty-five years, from 1945 to 1980. Under him, rapid
industrialization and urbanization took place in Yugoslavia, and it
became a prosperous country. Tito also joined the Non-Aligned
Movement later, although he never deviated from the official path
of socialism. Tito was a very able and pragmatic leader, and under
his long rule, separatist ethno-nationalism remained strictly under
control. In fact, ethno-nationalism could hardly be observed in
FRY during his tenure.

A unique feature in Yugoslavia’s social life was the presence of

different ethnic communities which were mixed and scattered all
over the country. It was unique in the sense that in FRY no
particular ethnic community resided in a particular place, like in
many other European countries. They were highly intermingled
and scattered all over. As per the 1991 Census—the first after the
Cold War—8.5 million Serbians lived outside Serbia, in Bosnia and
Croatia. Likewise, 20 per cent of the Croats lived outside Croatia,
mainly in Bosnia and Vojvodina. Therefore, in Yugoslavia, ethnic
communities lived in a mixed form, and, as in former Soviet Union
and Czechoslovakia, they did not particularly live in their ‘own’
states. For this reason, separatist nationalism became very violent
in Yugoslavia, as different ethnic and religious communities took
up arms against one another within a particular state. The mixed
demographic character of the FRY could be ascertained from
another instance, taken from the 1991 Census. In Bosnia, as per the
Census, 44 per cent identified themselves as Muslims, 31 per cent
called themselves Serbs, 17 per cent called themselves Croats, and
only 5 per cent identified themselves as Yugoslavs. Owing to this
highly intermingled population, the civil war in Bosnia took an
ugly and violent turn.

Ethnic communities in FRY were separated from one another on

the basis of language and religion. From the beginning of the
Second World War to its disintegration, FRY had three official
languages—Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, and Macedonian. The
Serbs, the Croats, and the Montenegrins used the Cyrillic alphabet
for the Serbo-Croatian language, while the Muslim Slavs wrote the
same language in the Latin alphabet. Those who used the Cyrillic
alphabet considered themselves superior to others and took special
pride in their script. Language was thus a source of ethnic
differences in former Yugoslavia. Religion also created differences
among ethnic groups. For instance, Serbs, Macedonian Slavs and
Montenegrins were orthodox Christians; while Croats and
Slovenians were Roman Catholics. There were also divisions
among Muslims. Albanians and Muslim Slavs were ‘Sunnis’, while
the rest identified them as ‘Shia’s’. Religion also played a role in
the use of alphabets in former Yugoslavia. For example, the
orthodox Christians used the Cyrillic alphabet, and the rest used
the Latin. All these differences created divisive senses among the
people of former Yugoslavia.

Separatism could not, however, raise its ugly head during the
tenure of Josip Broz Tito, mainly because of his able leadership,
the one-party system under socialism, and satisfactory levels of
economic development in FRY. However, after the death of Tito in
1980, there was a serious crisis of leadership in the country. The
successors of Tito were not only inefficient, they were highly partial
as well. They were extremely loyal to their own ethnic
communities, a dangerous trend in a multi-ethnic country like
Yugoslavia. In the absence of efficient leadership, the rate of
economic growth declined, developmental projects suffered, and
the leaders of the six republics blamed one another for the decay.
This had never happened during Tito’s tenure. As a fallout of
economic decline, all kinds of social unrest began to surface.
Slovenia and Croatia, the two economically advanced provinces,
alleged that other underdeveloped provinces of the South were
burdening their economies. In 1988, Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb
nationalist leader, started a movement for an independent state.
He suspended the autonomous status for Vojvodina and Kosovo
and pressurized the Albanian majority living in Kosovo to accept
Serb supremacy. Milosevic’s policies created tremendous panic
among the non-Serbs living in former Yugoslavia, and they tried to
resist his desire to bring the whole of Yugoslavia under Serb
domination. This led to the beginning of fierce and bloody ethnic
conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia and other regions of former Yugoslavia.

The Communist Party in Yugoslavia was formally dismantled in

January 1990. After the end of the one-party rule, leaders of
different provinces began to foment ethnic nationalism. Milosevic’s
extreme Serb nationalism created severe resentment in
economically prosperous Slovenia and Croatia. People as well as
leaders of these two provinces felt that extreme Serb nationalism
would be detrimental for their economic and ethnic interests.
Afraid and resentful of Serb domination over Yugoslavia, the
republics of Croatia and Slovenia declared independence on 25
June 1991. Earlier, they had conducted a referendum for separate
statehood, which was overwhelmingly supported by Slovenians
and Croats. In 1992, the European Community (EC) recognized the
independence of these two states. Two other republics, Bosnia and
Macedonia, also declared independence at the end of 1991 and
appealed for recognition from the EC. When the EC and the US
recognized Bosnia and Macedonia in April 1992, fierce ethnic wars
started in these two republics. In Bosnia, Serbs, Croats, and
Muslims targeted one another in a bloody civil war seldom
witnessed before. Each community had its agenda of ethnic
cleansing in this civil war. Millions died and millions were
displaced in Bosnia due to this civil war. The fierce civil war
continued from 1992 to 1995. Finally, peace was restored in Bosnia
in December 1995, when leaders from the US, the NATO, Serbia,
Croatia, and Bosnia signed the Dayton Peace Accord to end the
civil war in Bosnia. Hatred based on ethnicity, and the desire of all
ethnic groups to annex territory, made the civil war in Bosnia
bloody and violent.

On 27 April 1992, Serbian leader Milosevic declared that Serbia

and Montenegro would henceforth be known as the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). With this announcement, Milosevic
tried to fulfill two wishes—first, to make Serbia and Montenegro
the legal heir of former Yugoslavia; second, to accept, legally, the
disintegration of Yugoslavia. But the UN, the EC and several states
refused to accept Serbia as the inheritor of Yugoslavia. Following
this, FRY was renamed Serbia and Montenegro in February 2003.
Therefore, former Yugoslavia was initially split into five states due
to ethnic nationalism. These five states are Slovenia, Croatia,
Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia-Montenegro. It may
be noted in this context that Kosovo declared its independence
from Serbia on 17 February 2008. Although Kosovo’s
independence was recognized by several countries, several others,
including Serbia and Russia, refused such recognition. Russia
threatened to veto Kosovo’s membership of the UN. So Kosovo has
very little chance to become a UN-member in the near future as its
independent status remains controversial at present.

Many reasons could be cited for the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

These are: (1) extreme form of nationalism; (2) ethnic hatred; (3)
crisis of leadership (after Tito’s death); (4) non-uniform economic
development (northern provinces like Slovenia and Croatia were
more developed than the southern provinces); and (5) the
unwillingness of different ethnic communities to live in a united
Yugoslavia. All these factors led to severe ethnic conflicts in
different parts of Yugoslavia. In all, four civil wars took place on
the basis of ethno-nationalism in Yugoslavia. The first of these civil
wars took place in Slovenia. It lasted only for ten days during June-
July 1991, and there was very little casualty. The second one
happened in Croatia, during the periods July-December 1991 and
May-June 1995. The rate of casualty in the second war was more
than Slovenia; thousands died and thousands were rendered
homeless. But the third civil war in Bosnia was more violent.
Millions died and about 2.5 million people were rendered
homeless. Kosovo witnessed the fourth civil war from March to
June 1999. Milosevic’s repressive policies towards the Albanians
and his desire to establish Serb supremacy gave the civil war
horrific proportions. Kosovo attracted the attention of the whole
world, and to resist Milosevic’s Serb army, the NATO resorted to
massive bombing in Kosovo. To safeguard the Albanians from Serb
militia, the NATO called its mission in Kosovo a ‘humanitarian
intervention’. Kosovo created quite a stir in international politics in
1999.

Ethnic Problem in the Russian Federation

Ethnic nationalism, mainly spearheaded by the Chechen people,

has remained an irritant for the Russian Federation (henceforth,
only Russia) for some time. At present, Russia is the largest
country in the world in terms of territory. As per the 1999 Census,
the Russian population is 14.6 crores, comprising over a hundred
ethnic communities. The Russians constitute the largest ethnic
community with 82 per cent of the total population of the country.
The second largest ethnic community, as per the 1999 census, is
Tatar, constituting 4 per cent. Among other ethnic communities,
notable in terms of population are Ukrainians, Chuvashes,
Germans, Buryats, Jews, Yakuts and Chechens. Russia has twenty-
one autonomous republics (henceforth ‘provinces’, for easy
understanding) and some of these provinces are named after the
principal ethnic community living there. For example, in the Tatar
province, the Tatars; in Yakut, the Yaukuts, and in Buryat, the
Buryats are principal ethnic communities. But the Russians,
numerically far superior to other ethnic groups, have a sizeable
presence in all provinces. In fact, they are the majority ethnic
community in several provinces, and have occupied important
positions in the political and economic sectors. Other ethnic
communities are resentful of this Russian domination.

In Chechnya, however, the Russians are not a majority; and the

Chechens outnumber the Russians to be the majority ethnic
community. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chechnya
became one of the twenty-one autonomous republics of Russia.
Under former Soviet Union, Chechnya was in the autonomous
republic of Chechen-Ingush. When Soviet Union was being split
into fifteen independent states, Chechnya reiterated its demand for
a separate statehood. In 1991, within months after the formation of
the Russian Federation, Chechnya declared its independence. But
the Russian government under President Boris Yeltsin—the first
post-Cold War government in Russia—rejected this declaration
and urged Chechen leaders to stay within Russia. It considered the
Chechen demand for a separate statehood dangerous because such
demands could incite separatist movements in other provinces as
well, especially in non-Russian majority provinces like Tatar,
Chuvash, Buryat or Yakut. Historically, Chechnya could never
identify itself with the Russian culture, because its religion,
language, social practices, all were different from those of the
Russians. The Chechen language originated from the Nakh
language group of the Caucasus region. The Chechens, for this
reason, also identify themselves as ‘nokhchiis’. For long, the Arabic
script was used to write in the Chechen language. In 1920, the
Latin script replaced the Arabic and is now used to write the
language. The Russian language, on the other hand, is a part of the
broader Indo-European language group, and originated from its
Slav branch. The Chechens are thus linguistically different from
the Russians. Their religions are different too. The Chechens are
Muslims, mainly Sunnis. For a long time, religion had helped the
Chechens maintain an identity separate from that of the ‘Christian’
Russians. Due to differences in language and religion, the
Chechens considered themselves culturally different from the
majority Russians in former Soviet Union.

The Chechens never accepted Russian domination lying down. In

1944, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin accused the Chechens of
conspiring with Nazi Germany to topple the Soviet government. As
a punitive measure, Stalin sent the Chechen leaders to exile in
Central Asia. The autonomous status of the Chechen-Ingush region
was also scrapped at that time. However, in 1957, this status was
restored. The Chechens and the Russians shared a history of
antagonism for long. After the disintegration of Soviet Union, their
rivalry reached its peak. At the beginning of 1991, when the split of
Soviet Union became imminent, Dzhokhar Dudayev, the Army
Chief of Chechnya, demanded the end of Soviet rule in Chechnya
and ‘expelled’ the Soviet army and the government officials from
there. In October 1991, Dudayev won the election in Chechnya and
became the President. Chechnya declared its independence before
the ‘official’ disintegration of the Soviet Union in November 1991;
but Dudayev was unable to obtain recognition for an independent
Chechnya from other countries. The new Yeltsin-government of
Russia urged the Chechen leaders to abandon demands for a
separate statehood, and promised greater autonomy for Chechnya
within the Russian Federation. Negotiations continued throughout
1992 and 1993 for providing greater autonomy to Chechnya, but
the Chechen leaders never deviated from their demand for a
separate state. As a consequence, talks between the Yeltsin- and
the Dudayev-government failed. With the problem of ethnic
nationalism becoming too serious in Chechnya in 1994, the
Russian military was sent to tackle the situation. In a battle
between the Russian and the Chechen armies, more than 40,000
people died. In February 1995, the Russian army captured Grozny,
the capital of Chechnya. Dudayev fled, but terrorist activities
continued. Dudayev was ultimately killed in 1996 in a rocket attack
launched by the Russian army.

In May 1996, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Chechen leader

Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev signed a cease-fire. But this cease-fire
failed to bring peace in Chechnya as the Russian army and the
Chechen rebels continued to fight among themselves. Grozny was
devastated and 300,000 Chechens took shelter in other parts of
Russia. Russia reiterated its plans to give more autonomy to
Chechnya. But the Chechen leaders rejected the offer and
continued their fight. In August 1996, the Chechen rebels
‘liberated’ Grozny from the Russian army. In late August, a peace
accord was signed between Aleksandr Lebed, Security Adviser to
the Russian President, and the Chechen rebel leaders. By this
accord, both sides accepted to postpone the question of Chechen
statehood till 2001. It was decided that Chechnya would enjoy
extreme autonomy till 2001, but the issue of separate statehood
would be decided after that year. As per the peace accord, Russia
withdrew its troops from Chechnya in December 1996.

The Chechen people and a section of the Chechen rebels could not
accept the peace accord, as they found it insulting to Chechen
nationalism. In the elections held in January 1997, Yandarbiyev
was defeated and Army Chief Aslan Maskhadov elected the new
President of Chechnya. In May the same year, Maskhadov signed
another treaty with Yeltsin. But this new treaty actually retained
the provisions of the treaty of August 1996. This resulted in
Maskhadov being termed a traitor by the Chechen rebels and
losing his authority, although he could not be removed from
presidency immediately. Violent nationalism returned to Chechnya
in mid-1997, and the province witnessed frequent and continuous
armed battles. In 1999, the rebels captured Dagestan, and declared
Chechen-Dagestan an Islamic state. Moscow sent troops and
‘liberated’ Dagestan, but terrorist activities continued. During
August-September 1999, Chechen rebels bombarded Moscow and
two other cities of Russia. In retaliation, Russian troops entered
Chechnya again and captured Grozny in December 1999.
Thereafter, once again fierce battle ensued between the Chechen
rebels and the Russian army.

In May 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that

Chechnya was an integral part of Russia, and all federal laws would
be implemented in the autonomous republic of Chechnya. Putin
decided to remove Maskhadov from Chechen presidency and
install Akhmad Kadyrov as the new President. Maskhadov did not
agree and began to openly instigate the rebels. Putin’s declaration
that Chechnya was an integral part of Russia violated the
provisions of the August 1996 and May 1997 peace accords which
decided to postpone the issue of Chechen statehood till 2001.
Under the circumstances, rebels fighting for the cause of a Chechen
state escalated their activities with Maskhadov as their new
mentor. In October 2002, Chechen rebels forcibly captured a
theatre in Moscow and detained 800 Russian people, including
women and children. They threatened to blow up the theatre along
with all the detainees if their demand for a separate Chechen state
was not accepted. A special task force of the Russian military
eventually rescued people trapped inside the hall by transmitting
gas inside the hall, although 129 people—this included rebels as
well—were killed in this operation. In November 2002, the Putin-
government announced that a referendum would be held in
Chechnya for the proposed Chechen Constitution which prescribed
increased autonomy for Chechnya within the Russian federal
system. The referendum was held in March 2003. Moscow
declared it as being very successful while the Chechen rebels saw it
as a great failure. Normalcy suffered between claims and counter-
claims, and peace could not be restored in Chechnya. In September
2004, Chechen rebels captured a school in Beslan near Moscow
and detained nearly a thousand people, including children and
teachers. They demanded withdrawal of all Russian troops from
Chechnya. The Russian army entered the school and recaptured it
from the rebels, but not before a total of 350 persons, including
rebels, were killed. This incident of Beslan was later compared with
the ‘9/11’ terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September
2001.

Chechnya continues to remain an irritant for the federal

government in Russia, which prefers to include Chechnya as part
of the federation. Chechens, on the other hand, consider Russian
domination over Chechnya as forced and without popular support.
They continue to consider themselves a separate ethnic community
with little similarity with the Russians; they continue to struggle
for an identity separate from that of the Russians. Ethno-
nationalism inspired the Chechens to voice their demand for a
separate state for Chechnya, which the Russians rejected for fear of
more such demands from other non-Russian nationalities. Ethno-
nationalism, which remained dormant under socialist regimes,
dominated the political scenario of East and Central Europe after
the Cold War.

POST-COLD WAR WORLD ORDER

The four and a half decade long Cold War (1945–1990) marked an
important phase in recent international politics. This war was
responsible for the bipolar nature of world politics, in which the
two superpowers behaved like separate poles and contradicted
each other on almost every issue and in every part of the world.
The ideological and political differences between the Soviet Union
and the US acted towards sustaining bipolarity in international
politics during this period. With the disintegration of the Soviet
Union in 1991, Cold War ended and bipolarity in world politics also
ceased to exist. International politics had undergone remarkable
changes after the end of the war. The Russian Federation was
acknowledged as the successor of the former Soviet Union by the
international community. It was given a permanent seat at the UN
Security Council, in place of the Soviet Union. Russia also retained
nearly 85 per cent of the nuclear capability of the former Soviet
Union. With Cold War political calculations disappearing, Russia
and the US started effective cooperation between themselves in the
economic, political and security spheres.

Other notable developments in world politics that took place after

the Cold War were the unification of Germany, the creation of the
CIS, and the divisions of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Bipolarity
and Bloc politics there being no more, East and West Germany got
united into one Germany, and the Berlin Wall—it divided the city
of Berlin and symbolized the onset of the Cold War—was
demolished to mark the end of the war. Among the fifteen
sovereign states created out of the Soviet Union, twelve formed the
Commonwealth of Independent States, marking the beginning of a
new era of cooperation and friendship. As noted earlier, Yugoslavia
was initially split into five independent states amidst ethnic
violence, and Czechoslovakia was divided into two sovereign states
peacefully. This shows that the internal map of Europe was altered
after the Cold War. In other parts of the world, countries were
adjusting to their roles in a new world order which was markedly
different from that of the previous four and a half decades. The
days of bipolarity were over; political calculations on the basis of
bipolarity had to be changed.

What was the nature of this new world order? In the absence of the
Soviet Union, the US emerged as the only superpower with
formidable economic, military and political clouts. It appeared that
there was no nation that could successfully counter the might of
the US. Therefore, the new international order immediately after
the Cold War was described by scholars as a unipolar world, with
the US as the remaining superpower (Russia no longer remained a
superpower), exercising unobtrusive control over world politics.
Thus, bipolarity was replaced by unipolarity after the end of the
Cold War.

At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the

question regarding the unipolar nature of the present international
order may be re-examined. Is the world strictly unipolar today?
Today, there are some powers in the international order which can
pose a challenge to the superiority of the US. China is believed by
many to be one such power. It has a very strong military, the
second strongest in the world. China is a permanent member of the
UN Security Council and a nuclear-weapon state. Besides, China
has achieved spectacular economic growth during the last two
decades. If this rate of economic growth is sustained by China, it
may emerge as a counter-balancing force to the US in the near
future. The European Union (EU) is also surging ahead despite
different odds. A united Europe, as history has proved, could be a
force to reckon with. This regional organization has one of the
most powerful economies in the world at present. So, the EU is
most likely to figure in any future power calculations, Russia has
inherited most of the military might of former Soviet Union. As
mentioned earlier in this chapter, it has retained almost 85 per
cent of the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union, as well as the
permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Russia is now
an emerging economy, and if it can continue with its current
economic growth rate, this largest country on earth would certainly
emerge as a great power. Finally, a united Germany has the
potential to be a power to notice. It is one of the most industrially
developed nations in the world and a major contender for a
permanent seat in a revamped UN Security Council. In future,
Germany too may play a crucial role in international politics.
Considering the rise of these forces, a situation of bipolarity—US
versus China or US versus Russia—or balance of power may once
again emerge in world politics in the near future.

International politics is ever-changing; it is dynamic. It had never

accepted any particular order as permanent. Before the Second
World War, the balance of power system existed for a long period.
After the war, there was change in this balance and a new bipolar
world order set in. After the Cold War, the bipolar system made
way for a unipolar one in world politics. At present, the United
States is the sole super power and the pivot around which this
unipolar world politics revolves. But there are some powers, as has
been just mentioned, which can pose a threat to the US supremacy.
All this makes the current international order loaded with
multipolar characteristics, where more than one power may
exercise influence in world politics. Bipolarity or another balance
of power system may mark international politics once again in the
future. Considering all this, it would not be unwise to describe the
present international order as ‘unipolar with multipolar
tendencies’.
 QUESTIONS

1. Describe the origin and different phases of the Cold War.

2. Write short notes on:

a. Marshall Plan.
b. Truman Doctrine.
c. Cuban Missile Crisis.
d. Bloc Politics.
3. Analyse the causes of the end of the Cold War.
4. Examine the causes behind ethnic nationalism in former Czechoslovakia.
5. Why did Yugoslavia disintegrate? Explain in details.
6. Write a note on the ethnic problems in the Russian Federation.
7. How would you describe the post-Cold War world order?

8
Security and Nuclear Issues After the Second World
War

The use of nuclear technology for warfare was unknown to the

world before the Second World War. With the use of hydrogen
bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during this war, the devastating
effects of nuclear weapons came to light. It became evident that
nuclear weapons had far more destructive powers than
conventional weapons, and a nation’s ability to produce nuclear
weapons would give it an advantage over others in terms of
national security and international importance. The United States
(US) was the first nation to acquire and use nuclear weapons, but
was soon followed by the Soviet Union that produced its own
nuclear device in 1949. Soon a race for acquiring nuclear weapons
started around the world and it posed a serious challenge to the
maintenance of international peace and security after the Second
World War. With two superpowers possessing nuclear weapons,
the Cold War became intense and international security was in real
danger. The dreadful event of a nuclear war between the two
superpowers during the Cold War continuously threatened the goal
of a peaceful world that the United Nations (UN), and other world
leaders had envisioned. The world was facing an unprecedented
security crisis with the advent of nuclear, radiological, chemical
and biological weapons (these are together referred to as ‘weapons
of mass destruction’ or WMD) and the consequential politics
surrounding the WMD. The post-Second World War international
order was new to such politics, and efforts started soon to deal with
this new threat to global security and peace. Among the WMD,
nuclear weapons initially constituted the most dangerous threat to
the world. As a consequence, Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime
(NPR) was one of the first attempts to make the world free of
WMD after the Second World War.

After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies, when the awesome

and destructive power of nuclear weapons became apparent, some
nations were keen on pursuing policies that would prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons. After the Second World War was over,
in 1946, the US advocated the Baruch Plan (designed by the
American atomic scientist Bernard Baruch) that called for
international control over all nuclear weapons. But the Soviet
Union, still in pursue of its first nuclear bomb, as also due to the
apprehension of West Bloc’s supremacy in nuclear politics,
rejected this plan. In 1953, the US President Eisenhower proposed
an ‘atoms for peace’ plan to the UN General Assembly. This
proposal reflected the ideals of the earlier Baruch Plan. In 1957,
following the Eisenhower proposal of 1953, the Atoms for Peace
Treaty (APT) came into force. The Soviet Union, already a nuclear
power, agreed to sign the APT. The APT also created, in 1957, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that was given the
task of monitoring the use of nuclear energy. The IAEA, an
autonomous body affiliated to the UN, was later assigned the work
of ensuring that nuclear materials used for energy production are
not diverted towards military activities. The Baruch Plan, the APT
and the creation of the IAEA marked the beginning of what is
today called the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime.

THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY

After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, a Partial Test Ban Treaty
(PTBT) was signed in 1963 in Moscow banning all nuclear tests in
the atmosphere, under water and in space. While the US, Soviet
Union and Britain signed the Treaty, France and China did not,
reducing greatly the effectiveness of the PTBT. But the quest for
complete global disarmament continued under the NPR, and the
two superpowers were involved in these efforts. After the Chinese
nuclear explosion in 1964, the Soviet Union and the US began to
favour stringent nonproliferation norms. American president
Lyndon Johnson and Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev, along with
other world leaders (prominent among them was Frank Eiken, the
Foreign Minister of Ireland), started working on a treaty that could
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Finally,
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was mooted. The treaty
was opened for signature in 1968, although it entered into force in
March 1970. Ireland and Finland were the first countries to sign
this treaty. Till date, 189 countries have signed it, while India,
Pakistan and Israel have declined to sign. North Korea signed the
treaty, but withdrew from it in 2003. The NPT is a multilateral
treaty mutually agreed upon by the ratifying countries. Initially, it
was conceived for a period of twenty-five years with the provision
for review every five years. But the signing states decided by
consensus to extend the NPT indefinitely and without any
conditions at the Fifth Review Conference of the NPT in 1995 in
New York City.

The NPT has three major thrust areas, sometimes described by

scholars as the three ‘pillars’ of the treaty. They are: (1)
nonproliferation; (2) disarmament; and (3) the right to peaceful
use of nuclear energy. Provisions have been enumerated in the
treaty to achieve these three objectives. When the treaty came into
force in 1970, there were five declared nuclear-weapon-possessing
countries in the world—the US, the Soviet Union, Britain, China
and France. These five states were described as the Nuclear
Weapons States (NWS) by the treaty. The remaining signatories to
the treaty were refereed to as non-nuclear-weapon states. After the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has
become the sole successor of the Soviet Union as a NWS.

Important Articles of the NPT

Experts consider the NPT a major arms control device since the
Second World War. This necessitates a brief analysis of the
important articles in the NPT in order to realize its essence. In
Article I, the NWS pledge not to transfer nuclear explosive devices
or the means to produce them to non-weapon states. Article II
obligates the non-weapon states not to receive nuclear explosive
devices or attempt at acquiring them. It also prohibits non-weapon
states from receiving any kind of assistance for the manufacture of
nuclear weapons. Article III requires all non-weapon states to
conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of the
safeguards of the agency on all nuclear activities, and for
accounting for all nuclear materials. Article IV, in its two sections,
gives all signatories the ‘inalienable right’ to research, produce and
use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It further provides:

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate,

and have the right to participate in, the fullest
possible exchange of equipment, materials and
scientific and technological information for the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the
Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in
contributing alone or together with other States or
international organizations to the further
development of the applications of nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of
non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty,
with due consideration for the needs of the
developing areas of the world.
By Article VI of the NPT, all the signatories, particularly the NWS,
pledge to work towards cessation of the nuclear arms race and
universal nuclear disarmament. They also pledge to work for a
‘treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control’. Article X contains the provision of
withdrawal from the treaty. It allows each party to the treaty to
withdraw from it with three months’ notice. The provisions
contained in the NPT make it a legal document designed to
encourage nations in making political commitment to abstain from
acquiring nuclear weapons. However, it may be pointed out, the
NPT is only a voluntary commitment without adequate mechanism
for enforcement.

India, Pakistan and the NPT

As noted earlier, India and Pakistan have not signed the NPT
despite the treaty being ratified by 189 other nations. What are the
Indian and the Pakistani positions vis-à-vis the NPT? Although
these two countries of South Asia share some common perceptions
about the NPT, they had put forward separate arguments for their
refusal to sign the NPT. Both are of the opinion that the NPT is
inherently discriminatory as it had created imbalances in the
possession, use and distribution of nuclear energy. Further, the
treaty had placed the NWS in an advantageous position vis-à-vis
non-weapon states. It also failed to address the security concerns
of the non-weapon states of the developing world. Apart from these
common grounds, India and Pakistan had taken different paths for
their refusal to sign the NPT.

India had been opposing the NPT on several grounds. Indian views
on NPT could be succinctly summarized as follows: (1) the treaty is
discriminatory as it allows the NWS, the nuclear ‘haves’, to gain
absolute control over nuclear energy. It is possible for them to use
the provisions in the treaty to deprive the non-weapon states of the
important nuclear technology; (2) the NPT provides little security
cover to the non-weapon states. These countries feel militarily
threatened, and are extremely wary that nuclear weapons could be
used against them to gain political mileage; (3) there must be a
comprehensive, genuine, and non-discriminatory ban on all
nuclear tests, in the spirit of Article VI of the NPT. But
unfortunately, Article VI had been violated several times by the
NWS. As a result, complete disarmament could not be achieved;
(4) nuclear issues in South Asia are not strictly regional in nature;
they may have extra-regional effects. So, such issues there must
not be addressed separately. Before denuclearization of South Asia,
a global nuclear disarmament is absolutely necessary; (5) India
would only recognize an impartial nonproliferation regime
supported by a universal nuclear disarmament.

The Pakistani leadership had, time and again, made it clear that
Pakistan would not sign the NPT unilaterally unless India was
made to sign it. In fact, they think that India should be pressurized
to sign the NPT jointly with Pakistan. Like India, Pakistan views
the treaty as a biased one. Unlike India, Pakistan contends that the
nuclear issue in South Asia is a regional issue and could not be
solved by singling out Pakistan as the sole proliferator. They view
India as a major nuclear proliferator in South Asia, and believe
that Pakistan’s acceptance of the NPT is very much dependent on
India’s joining the NPR, because India is a security threat to
Pakistan. The NPT, in their view, would not succeed in South Asia
unless India is made to sign the treaty. This is why Pakistan linked
its ratification of the treay to India’s signing it.

THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

The PTBT and the NPT, signed during the Cold War, were not
completely successful in achieving universal nuclear disarmament.
Superpower rivalry and tension during this period hindered
satisfactory progress in nuclear disarmament until 1991.
Signatories to the PTBT held an amendment conference in 1991 to
discuss a proposal to convert the PTBT into an instrument seeking
to ban all nuclear-weapon tests everywhere—in the atmosphere,
under water, in space, and underground. With strong support from
the United Nations, negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) began at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva
in January 1994. The Final Draft, agreed upon by 127 states, was
presented to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on 10 September
1996. The treaty was opened for signature on 24 September 1996 at
the UN Headquarters.

The CTBT consists of a preamble, seventeen articles, two annexes,

and a Protocol. The Protocol describes verification procedures and
contains two annexes. The preamble to the CTBT stresses the need
for ‘continued systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear
weapons globally’ with the ultimate goal of their elimination and of
‘general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control’. It recognizes that ‘the cessation of all
nuclear weapon test explosions and all other nuclear explosions …
constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and non-
proliferation in all its aspects’.

Important Provisions in the CTBT

Article I of the CTBT outlines the ‘Basic Obligations’ of the treaty.

Section 1 of the Article says: ‘Each state party undertakes not to
carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear
explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion
at any place under its jurisdiction or control.’ Section 2 therein
declares: ‘Each State party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain
from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the
carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other
nuclear explosion’.

Article II describes ‘the Organization’ of the CTBT to ensure the

implementation of the treaty and provide a forum for consultation
and cooperation.

Article III provides for ‘National Implementation Measures’ for the

treaty. It requires each state party to take necessary measures to
implement its obligations under the treaty, including the
establishment of a National Authority for liaison with the
organization and other state parties.

Article IV, along with the Protocol, establishes the ‘verification

regime’ for the CTBT. Such a regime—consisting of the
International Monitoring System (IMS), the International Data
Centre (IDC), consultations and clarifications, on-site inspections
and confidence-building measures— ‘shall be capable of meeting
the verification requirements of the Treaty’ on its entry into force.

Article VI of the CTBT provides for ‘Settlement of Disputes’ and

elaborates the mechanisms by which disputes concerning the
application or interpretation of the treaty may be settled. Subject
to certain conditions, the International Court of Justice may be
requested to give an advisory opinion.

Article VII refers to the ‘Amendment Procedures’ of the treaty. It

says that each state party has the right to propose amendments to
the treaty, the Protocol or the annexes to the Protocol at any time
after the treaty’s entry into force. The proposed amendment
requires the approval of a majority of states parties at an
amendment conference with no party casting a negative vote.

Article VIII, which enumerates ‘Review of the Treaty’ provisions,

stipulates that a conference to review the operation and
effectiveness of the treaty would be held ten years after its entry
into force, ‘unless otherwise decided by a majority of the States
Parties’. Such review would take into account ‘any new scientific
and technological developments’. Further review conferences may
be held with the same objective at intervals of ten years thereafter,
or less, if the conference so decides in the preceding year.
Article IX declares that the treaty is of unlimited duration.

Article XIV of the CTBT remained the centre of controversy with its
provisions for ‘Entry into Force’. It said that the treaty would enter
into force 180 days after the forty-four state parties have deposited
their instruments of ratification with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, ‘but in no case earlier than two years after its
opening for signature’. To enter into force, the CTBT must be
ratified by the forty-four countries that, in 1996, possessed nuclear
research or power reactors. If the treaty has not entered into force
‘three years after the date of the anniversary of its opening for
signature’, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as
Depositary of the Treaty, could, at the request of a majority of
states that had ratified it, convene a conference to examine the
situation and to ‘decide by consensus what measures consistent
with international law may be undertaken to accelerate the
ratification process’ in order to facilitate the treaty’s early entry
into force.

Article XVI declares the UN Secretary-General s as the treaty’s

Depositary.

Finally, Article XVII contains the provision that the texts in

thetreaty are equally authentic, irrespective of their being in
Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian or Spanish.

CTBT: The Current Position

Article XIV of the CTBT, as mentioned earlier, states that in order

to enter into force the treaty must be ratified by all forty-four
countries that, in 1996, possessed nuclear research or power
reactors. The status in 2010 is that forty-one of these forty-four
countries have signed the treaty but only thirty-one have ratified it.
Non-signatories include India, North Korea and Pakistan. The
United States, which led the effort to conclude a CTBT and was the
first to sign the treaty, remained, along with China, among those
who had signed the treaty but not ratified it. The Bush (Jr)
administration had actively resisted the CTBT’s logic. The treaty
now has 180 signatories but has not entered into force because the
United States and eight other CTBT-countries, including China,
Egypt, India, Iran and Israel, have failed to ratify it. US ratification
of the CTBT is possible. It is now up to the Obama administration
to secure consent from the Senate for an early ratification of the
treaty.

On 24 September 2009, thirteen years after the CTBT opened for

signature on the same day in 1996, representatives from 103
countries participated in an Entry into Force Conference in New
York City to discuss issues pertaining to facilitation for ‘entry into
force’ of the treaty and nonproliferation. The two-day conference
began on the same day as the UN Security Council started
deliberations on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues
at Heads of State level. Among the 103 countries that attended the
conference were eighty-six ratifying, thirteen signatory and two
non-signatory states (Saudi Arabia and Trinidad and Tobago). The
Final Declaration of the conference called on the non-signatories
and the non-ratifying nations to sign and ratify the CTBT in order
to facilitate entry into force of the treaty. It contained a special
appeal to those nations whose ratification was necessary for
making the treaty a legally binding instrument. The simultaneous
meeting of the Heads of State at the UN Security Council, chaired
by the US President Barack Obama, also called upon all states ‘to
refrain from conducting a nuclear test explosion and to sign and
ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT),
thereby bringing the treaty into force at an early date’.

The Entry into Force Conference of the CTBT held in New York on
25 September 2009—this is the last till date—aroused hopes, as did
the earlier ones, for the treaty to enter into force. However, an
early ratification of the treaty would be extremely difficult, given
the opposition of the CTBT by three of the forty-four countries that
attended the 1996 Conference. India, Pakistan, and North Korea
have not yet signed the treaty, and until they sign and ratify it, it
can never become a legally binding instrument. Moreover,
important powers in today’s world, like the US and China, have not
ratified the treaty. Debates are going on in these countries over the
issue of its ratification. The US Senate did not ratify the treaty
earlier. It would not be an easy task for the Obama administration
to persuade the Senate to ratify the treaty. Further, India and
Pakistan are undecided about signing the CTBT. China too has not
shown great enthusiasm in ratifying the treaty, although it signed
it. Considering all these factors, it could be concluded that the
future of the CTBT is uncertain, and like the PTBT and the NPT, it
would not be an effective instrument for disarmament in the
present world.

CTBT and India

India joined the Conference on Disarmament (CD) that began in

Geneva in January 1994. The conference deliberated over a CTBT
as part of the overall disarmament process. From the very
beginning, India had been opposing the draft of the CTBT on
several grounds. To begin with, it alleged that the draft did not
address India’s security concerns. Nuclear activities were
continuing unabated in India’s neighbourhood, but the text of the
draft did not bother to address the issue of security concerns for
countries like India. Further, India objected to the Entry into Force
(Article XIVE) clause of the CTBT Draft saying that it would put
unwanted obligations on India. The mandatory signature of the
forty-four states for the CTBT to enter into force was not
acceptable to India because it viewed the CTBT as another flawed
instrument like the NPT. Since India had not signed the NPT
earlier, it would contradict its position on nuclear issues if it agreed
to sign the CTBT.

India also objected to the verification regime referred to in the

draft. The CD deliberated on the procedures to penalize defaulters
after the treaty came into force. But who would identify the
defaulters? What kind of international monitoring system was
necessary for legal action? India was concerned about these issues
while objecting to the draft. Moreover, India did not like the close
linkage between the NPT and the CTBT. The Preamble to the NPT
made specific references to the completion of a comprehensive test
ban treaty and the linkage was discussed frequently ever since
negotiations on the NPT started. Failure of the NPT signatory-
states to fulfill the obligations outlined in Article VI of the treaty in
fact increased the gap between nuclear ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in
terms of nuclear capability and security. The linkage between the
NPT and the CTBT would only exacerbate this discrimination,
argued India.
India further viewed the CTBT as only an instrument to cap the
nuclear programmes of the developing countries, while it would
have practically no control over the nuclear activities of developed
nations with sophisticated technologies. India also had
reservations about linking universal disarmament with
proliferation issues. Since the time of Jawaharlal Nehru, all Indian
leaders called for a total universal disarmament of all weapons.
Excessive emphasis on nuclear nonproliferation only reveals an
evil design to stop nuclear activities of developing nations, while
the developed countries would continue to test weapons in
sophisticated laboratories. Therefore, a CTBT would indulge in
further discrimination between the NWS and non-weapon states.
Considering all these factors, India vetoed the draft text of the
CTBT on 20 August 1996, saying that the text did not serve the
purpose of promoting the realization of universal disarmament
goals. It refused to sign the treaty.

THE FMCT AND THE MTCR

FMCT: An Unfinished Story

A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) has not yet been

materialized, although proposals in this direction had been mooted
in 1993. In December 1993, the UN General Assembly passed a
resolution on fissile material cut-off, calling for the negotiation of a
nondiscriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively
verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The resolution
wanted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to provide
assistance in examining verification arrangements. The Conference
on Disarmament agreed by consensus in March 1995 to establish
an Ad Hoc Committee with a mandate to negotiate a cut-off treaty
based on that resolution. In May 1995, at the NPT Review and
Extension Conference, the participants agreed to seek ‘the
immediate commencement and early conclusion’ of cut-off
negotiations. However, despite the widespread international
backing for an FMCT, formal negotiations on cut-off have not yet
commenced. The Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests of 1998 again
aroused the demand for an FMCT in the Western world, but
deadlock persisted over the FMCT thereafter. As a consequence,
the FMCT continue to remain a goal, not a reality.
The main objectives of the FMCT are: (1) to secure a
comprehensive ban on any further production of fissile material for
any nuclear explosives; (2) to bring all production facilities that are
not subject to any international inspections under a strict
verification and monitoring regime; (3) to make the world safer
from nuclear weapons; and (4) to make it obligatory for the parties
to the FMCT not to produce fissile material for any nuclear devices
and give an undertaking to accept verification and monitoring
regime.

All these objectives, except the third, have generated intense

controversies and led to a deadlock over FMCT. While there is
general agreement that the world must be made safer from nuclear
weapons, there are controversies over the issue of a blanket ban on
the production of fissile materials, and on inspection of production
facilities. India, for instance, believes that all sovereign countries
have an inalienable right to engage in research, and in production
and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Fissile materials
used for civilian purposes must be differentiated from materials
used for nuclear explosives. In fact, FMCT controversies begin with
the ambiguous definition of a ‘fissile material’ for nuclear
explosives, as well as the recycling facilities of these materials. The
US position, for example, is that some uranium and plutonium
fuels become wastes after single use and they must be disposed of.
The Indian, French and Japanese positions, on the other hand, are
that the spent fuel must be treated as a ‘resource’ and needs to be
recycled. Until controversies over these important issues are
resolved, the FMCT will continue to remain elusive as an
instrument of disarmament.

MTCR: Another Step Towards Nonproliferation

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is a voluntary

association of sovereign states which share the goals of
nonproliferation of unmanned delivery systems capable of
delivering weapons of mass destruction. The MTCR seeks to
coordinate national export licensing efforts aimed at preventing
their proliferation. It was established in April 1987 by seven
countries— Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United
Kingdom and the United States. Since then, the number of MTCR-
member-countries has risen to thirty-four, all of which have equal
standing within the regime. The current members of the MTCR are
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea (South
Korea), Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United
States of America.
MTCR Guidelines

Guidelines issued by the MTCR define its purpose and provide the
overall structure and rules to guide the member-countries and
those wanting to adhere unilaterally to the guidelines. Further, The
Equipment, Software and Technology Annexe (ESTA) is designed
to assist in implementing export controls on MTCR Annexe items.
The ESTA is divided into Category I and Category II items. It
includes a broad range of equipments and technologies, both
military and dual-use— used for military as well as industrial and
commercial purposes—that are relevant to missile development,
production and operation. Member-countries exercise restraint in
the consideration of all transfers of items contained in the ESTA.
All transfers are considered on a case-by-case basis. Category I
items include complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles,
space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air
vehicle systems (including cruise missiles systems, target and
reconnaissance drones) with capabilities exceeding a
300km/500kg range/ payload threshold; production facilities for
such systems; and, major sub-systems including rocket stages, re-
entry vehicles, rocket engines, guidance systems and warhead
mechanisms. Utmost restraint is applied in the case of Category I
items.

Category II items include complete rocket systems (including

ballistic missiles systems, space launch vehicles and sounding
rockets) and unmanned air vehicles (including cruise missile
systems, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) not covered in
item I, capable of a maximum range equal to or greater than
300km. Also included are a wide range of equipments, materials
and technologies, most of which have uses other than for missiles
capable of delivering WMD. Members of the MTCR enjoy greater
flexibility in the treatment of Category II transfers, compared to
category I transfers, although within the parameters of restraint.
The MTCR guidelines declare that the regime is ‘not designed to
impede national space programmes or international cooperation in
such programmes as long as such programmes could not
contribute to delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction’.

The MTCR has stipulated that partner- (member) countries should

obtain the following undertakings before the transfer of a
controlled item: (1) a statement from the user specifying the use
and end use location of the proposed transfer, if necessary
accompanied by documents explaining its business activities and
organization; (2) an assurance explicitly stating that the proposed
transfers will not be used for any activities related to the
development or production of delivery systems for WMD; and (3)
wherever possible and if deemed necessary, an assurance that a
post shipment inspection may be made by the exporter or the
exporting government. All the partners have also agreed that their
consent will be secured in a manner consistent with their national
laws and practices, and prior to any retransfer to a third country of
the equipments, materials or related technologies.

The partners of the MTCR have also affirmed the principle that
membership of the regime does not involve the right to obtain
technology from another partner or any obligation to supply it.
Members are expected to exercise appropriate accountability and
restraint in their trade with fellow partners. Member-countries
may also encourage all other countries to observe the MTCR
guidelines on transfers of missiles and related technologies as a
contribution to the building of a safer world. A third country may
choose to adhere to the guidelines without being obliged to join the
group, and a few have done so. MTCR and its members may get
involved in conducting technical exchanges and broader dialogues
on proliferation issues with non-member countries.
MTCR: The Balance Sheet

Since its establishment in 1987, the Missile Technology Control

Regime has been successful in helping to stop or slow down
ballistic missile programmes of many countries. For instance,
Argentina, Egypt, and Iraq abandoned their joint Condor II
ballistic missile programmes. Further, South Africa, Brazil, South
Korea and Taiwan either shelved or eliminated missile or space
launch vehicle programmes. Poland and the Czech Republic
destroyed their ballistic missiles, in part, to enhance their chances
of joining the MTCR. At the annual meeting of the MTCR in Oslo
in July 1992, the member-countries agreed to expand the scope of
the regime to include nonproliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) for all weapons of mass destruction. Prohibited materials
have been divided into two categories, which are outlined in the
ESTA of the MTCR.

In October 1994, in order to achieve greater uniformity in the

enforcement of the MTCR guidelines, the member-countries
established a ‘no undercut’ policy, which meant that if one member
denied the sale of some technology to another country, then all the
members must adhere to that decision. In 2002, the MTCR was
supplemented by the International Code of Conduct (ICOC)
against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, also known as the Hague
Code of Conduct. The code calls for restraint and care in the
proliferation of ballistic missile systems capable of delivering
weapons of mass destruction. The ICOC, initiated by members of
the MTCR, took the principles of the regime, expanded upon them
and offered membership to all nations with less stringent
restrictions. Now, 117 nations enforce export controls to curb the
proliferation of UAVs.

The MTCR was also able to encourage some non-members to

follow its guidelines. For instance, China has agreed to abide by the
original guidelines and annexe of 1987. Some other countries like
Israel, Romania and the Slovak Republic have agreed to abide by
the MTCR without joining it. These countries have decided to
maintain export controls consistent with the regime. The MTCR,
however, has its limitations. It is alleged by the member-states that
it failed to contain countries like Iran, North Korea, India, and
Pakistan in their bid to advance their missile programmes. These
countries, with varying degrees of foreign assistance—some of
which come from MTCR member-states—have developed and
deployed medium-range ballistic missiles with a range of 1,000
kilometres and are in the process of building missiles with much
greater ranges. These countries (not MTCR-members), as alleged
by member-states, engaged in the transfer of missile technology in
the global arms market. North Korea, for example, is suspected to
be the primary source of ballistic missile proliferation in the world
today. Iran has allegedly supplied missile production items to
many Middle-East countries, Syria in particular. As the MTCR is a
voluntary association, and the decision to export missile
technology is the sole responsibility of each member-country, the
regime has, in effect, limited control over transfers of controlled
items. Monetary and political considerations often get precedence
over associational norms in the Missile Technology Control
Regime.

WMDS AND THE PRESENT WORLD

Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) constitute an

unprecedented threat to international security and the human
civilization. Efforts have been made since the Second World War to
make the world free of WMDs. In 1972, a Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their
Destruction, generally referred to as the Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC), was signed in London, Moscow and
Washington DC to prohibit the development, production, and
stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons. More than 165 states
have signed and ratified it. Article 1 of the BWC declares:

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes

never in any circumstances to develop, produce,
stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain: (1)
Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins
whatever their origin or method of production, of
types and in quantities that have no justification for
prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
and (2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery
designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile
purposes or in armed conflict.
The Geneva Protocol of 1925, for the first time, banned the use of
bacteriological elements in warfare. But it was not before 1969 that
a comprehensive draft, prepared by Britain and aimed at complete
elimination of biological weapons, was taken up for negotiation.
The UN lent out its support, and the General Assembly passed a
resolution in 1971 supporting the proposed BWC of 1972. The BWC
that entered into force in March 1975 also pledged that each
member-country shall destroy all existing stocks of biological
weapons, and no member-country shall engage in the transfer of
materials required for the production of such weapons. India, like
many other countries, has signed and ratified the BWC and has
destroyed all its stockpile of biological weapons.

Since its entry into force, the BWC has been holding periodic
review conferences. These conferences aimed at strengthening the
convention through giving suggestions on issues like verification
procedures, confidence-building measures, appointment of experts
and other protocols to help the BWC keep pace with changing
times. However, recent technological developments have posed a
serious challenge to the convention. The biotech revolution, for
instance, brought with it severe problems for the BWC.
Biotechnology has made it possible to create ‘designer bugs’ that
may be used as biological agents for military purposes. It is almost
impossible to confront these designer bugs that could specifically
target any particular racial, religious or ethnic group. Poor states
which cannot afford to build costly nuclear weapons can take this
comparatively cheaper route of biotechnology for the purpose of
warfare. Therefore, a major arms control challenge of the present
world is to combat newer forms of biological weapons that could be
built following the biotech revolution.

Like biological weapons, chemical weapons too constitute a real

threat to international security in the present world. These
weapons are also considered as weapons of mass destruction. They
contain highly detrimental chemicals that can disable and kill
people. Different chemicals are used in different chemical weapons
to affect the nervous system, the respiratory system, the blood, the
skin or other parts of the human body. After the holocaust of the
First World War, that witnessed the use of mustard gas resulting in
lung damage and skin eruptions, the Geneva Protocol of 1925
banned the production and use of chemical weapons. But it is
difficult to exercise effective control on such usage as these can be
produced using methods similar to those for producing
pharmaceuticals, pesticides, gases and other items required for
civilian and medical purposes. It is also difficult to locate
production sites producing chemical weapons, because these could
be present under the guise of civilian chemical facilities, as also
because they deny chemicals or equipments wanted by a suspected
nation. Chemical weapons are cheaper to manufacture, and
therefore possessed by several states, including the poor ones.
Therefore, elimination of chemical weapons, along with other
WMD, is the greatest challenge of our times.

In order to meet this challenge, a Convention on the Prohibition of

the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical
Weapons and on their Destruction, popularly known as the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), was signed on 13 January
1993 in Paris and New York City. It became operational from April
1997. As of June 2009, 188 countries, including 165 signatories,
have supported its commitments. India too has signed and ratified
the CWC and destroyed its whole stockpile of chemical weapons by
April 2009. This convention is currently administered by the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
and the UN Secretary-General is its depositary. As per the CWC
stipulations, the OPCW must be informed of any plant having, or
expecting, an annual produce of more than 200 tonnes of
chemicals (chemicals falling under any of the three categories
identified by the CWC) or thirty tonnes, if the chemical contains
sulfur, phosphorous or fluorine. Over the years, the convention has
made strict verification provisions and is in a position to sanction
violators, including non-parties to the convention. The OPCW is
mainly entrusted with the task of verification.

The international nonproliferation regime, with its various arms

like the PTBT, NPT, CTBT, FMCT, MTCR, BWC and CWC, has
been much active in fulfilling its dream of achieving a weapon-free
world since the Second World War. In some cases, the regime has
been successful in realizing its targets. The BWC and the CWC, for
instance, have been working satisfactorily towards reducing the
dangers of biological and chemical weapons from the world. Till
2009, most of the member-states of the UN have become parties to
the BWC and the CWC, and have committed themselves to abide
by the provisions in the two conventions. Some states, such as
China, Libya and North Korea, have expressed reservations about
 the stipulations mentioned in the conventions. But that has not
proved to be detrimental to the functioning and progress of the
BWC and the CWC. Several states have already destroyed their
stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and more and more
states are willing to do so under the guidance of these conventions.

But similar success cannot be attributed to other instruments of

the nonproliferation regime like the NPT, CTBT, MTCR and FMCT.
At least ten states important in terms of nuclear weapons have
either not signed, or signed but not ratified, the CTBT. India,
Pakistan and North Korea have signed neither the NPT nor the
CTBT, rendering these two instruments almost ineffective. Six
other countries—the United States, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, China
and Egypt—have signed but not ratified the CTBT. While the future
of the CTBT and the FMCT remain uncertain, the MTCR has also
not evoked the confidence of major nations like India, China and
Japan. Both the CTBT and the FMCT are still in their formative
stages, and it would take more time and more acrimonious
deliberations among countries to finally make them legally binding
instruments. It is thus evident that the nonproliferation regime has
not been totally successful in its mission. This is due to some
flawed provisions in instruments like the NPT, the CTBT and the
MTCR, and also due to differences in treatment among nations as
contained in the provisions of these instruments. Unless these
deficiencies are addressed, the NPT, the CTBT and the MTCR
could not receive universal acceptance. While disarmament is the
need of the hour and a weapon-free world the primary target of our
times, non-discriminatory instruments of disarmament are also
very important to secure a world free of lethal weapons.

QUESTIONS

1. Make a critical estimate of the NPT.

2. Analyse the Indian position vis-à-vis the NPT and the CTBT.
3. Write notes on the FMCT and the MTCR.
4. Examine disarmament efforts in the contemporary world.

9
Regional Organizations
Regional organizations have proliferated all over the world after
the Second World War. States of a particular region form regional
organizations to forge economic, security and political cooperation
among themselves. Although the primary motive of several
regional organizations after the Second World War was to achieve
security guarantee for their members, after the Cold War, in an
altered international milieu, such organizations have mainly
focused on economic development of the region through
meaningful cooperation among member-states. Through the
creation of Free Trade Area (FTA), regional organizations are
trying to achieve purposeful economic cooperation among
members. Moreover, they cater to the needs, desires, and
aspirations of the people of a particular region. Therefore, the
study of regional organizations has assumed an important place in
the discourse of International Relations. In this chapter, several
such organizations would be taken up for analysis, and the
discussion would begin with the SAARC, the regional organization
of South Asia.

SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION (SAARC)

Origin and Members

The SAARC is a comparatively newer regional organization in

terms of its establishment. It was formally established on 8
December 1985 in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. However, the
preparation for forming a regional organization in South Asia
started earlier, in early-1980, when the then President of
Bangladesh Ziaur Rahman put forward such an idea. After several
rounds of discussion and deliberation, the SAARC was formally
launched in 1985 with seven members— Bangladesh, Bhutan,
India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan joined
SAARC in 2007. These eight states of South Asia form the SAARC
at present. China, Iran and Myanmar have expressed their wishes
to join the SAARC as members. Their candidatures for full
membership are under consideration and subject to unanimous
approval by current SAARC-members. Apart from these members,
the SAARC has provided ‘observer’ status to Australia, China,
European Union, Iran, Japan, Mauritius, Myanmar, South Korea
and the United States. Russia has expressed its desire to be an
‘observer’.
 Objectives of the SAARC

The Charter of the SAARC, signed by the Heads of Government of

the member-states, has outlined in detail the objectives of the
organization. They are: (1) to serve the people of South Asia and to
develop their standards of living; (2) to work for economic, social
and cultural development of the region, and to ensure dignity of
life for every individual; (3) to create an atmosphere of unity and
confidence among states in South Asia; (4) to realize others’
problems through mutual trust and cooperation; (5) to establish
mutual cooperation in economic, social, cultural, scientific and
technological areas; (6) to enhance cooperation with other
developing countries of the world; (7) to increase mutual
cooperation among member-states in order to protect the interests
of South Asia in different international bodies; and (8) to seek
increased levels of cooperation with all international organizations
and other regional organizations.

Administrative Structure of the Organization

Like other regional organizations, the SAARC too has an elaborate

administrative structure to run the organization. At the top of this
structure is the meeting of the Heads of Government (HOGs) of the
member-states. Known as the SAARC Summit, this meeting of the
HOGs is held once a year, and it draws up the policies,
programmes and activities of the organization for the year. In
reality, the SAARC summit approves policies formulated by the
Council of Ministers, which comes next in the organizational
hierarchy. The council consists of Foreign (External Affairs)
Ministers of member-states, and it meets twice a year to formulate
and devise methods of implementation of the policies and
programmes of the organization. The Charter of the SAARC has
enlisted five major tasks for the Council of Ministers. These are: (1)
to formulate policies for the organization; (2) to determine levels of
cooperation among member-states; (3) to identify new areas of
cooperation; (4) to create new infrastructures for the organization
as per requirements; and (5) to take decisions on matters of
general interest to member-states. The council is, in effect, the
main decision-making body of the SAARC. The next in the
administrative hierarchy is the Standing Committee. It is
composed of foreign secretaries of every member-state. This
committee is mainly responsible for the implementation of SAARC
policies and programmes, which it analyses and supervises
throughout the year. It sends an annual report to the Council of
Ministers. The charter has provided for a Secretariat of the
organization. This is the main office of the SAARC, located in
Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal. It is responsible for coordinating
SAARC activities in the region. The Secretariat is headed by a
Secretary-General.

Apart from these main bodies, the SAARC Charter has instructed
the formation of several committees, such as the Technical
Committee and the Action Committee, for smooth implementation
of SAARC programmes and policies. These committees would
comprise experts from the economic, social, cultural and
educational, scientific and technological, and ecological fields. As
per the directives of the charter, the SAARC has formulated
thirteen technical committees in different areas to spread its
activities throughout the region. The areas for which these
committees had been set up include agriculture, communication,
education, culture and sports, environment, meteorology, health
and population, prevention of narcotic drugs, rural development,
science and technology, tourism, transportation, and women’s
welfare. Apart from these committees, the SAARC has also set up
five regional centres to spread its programmes. These are located
in Dhaka, for the promotion of agriculture and information, and
for Meteorological Research; in Kathmandu, for the prevention of
tuberculosis; in New Delhi, for documentation; and in Islamabad,
for human resource development. Further, the SAARC is engaged
in commendable work in areas of child welfare, anti-terrorist
activities, food, and agriculture.

SAARC Summits

Since its formation on 8 December 1985, sixteen SAARC summits

have been held till date in different parts of South Asia. Table
9.1 enlists them.

Table 9.1: SAARC Summits: 1985–2010

As Table 9.1 shows, SAARC summits were not held regularly (once
every year) due to political disturbances in member-states, and
also due to political tensions between the two largest states in the
organization, India and Pakistan. The longest interval between two
summits occurred between the tenth (1998) and eleventh (2002)
summits. This was due to the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan,
and the Kargil crisis between these two states.

After the end of the Cold War, the SAARC placed renewed
emphasis on economic coordination and development of the
member-states. If it committed itself to socio-cultural issues in the
1980s, it placed special importance on economic issues in the
1990s. This could be ascertained from the fact that in 1993 the
members signed a SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement
(SAPTA) to facilitate free trade among South Asian states. SAPTA
became operational in 1995. It was the first significant step
towards building up a free trade area in South Asia as it pledged
liberal trade among member-states. It announced tariff
concessions on more than four thousand items of trade. It also
encouraged trade with less or no duties. SAPTA remained effective
till 2004, when it was converted, as per provisions of the
Arrangement, into an agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area
(SAFTA) at the twelfth SAARC summit in Islamabad. The SAFTA
Declaration categorically stated that the agreement owed its
inspiration to the successful operation of the SAPTA. For a
thorough discussion of the free trade area in South Asia, the
agreement on SAFTA must be analysed carefully.
 Agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA)

The SAFTA Agreement (henceforth, only SAFTA) was signed in

2004, but it came into force from 1 January 2006. Article 3 of
agreement states the objectives. It says that the agreement would
facilitate trade and economic cooperation among the SAARC-
states. These are various methods by which such cooperation could
be enhanced: (1) by removing trade barriers and facilitating free
movement of goods among SAARC-states; (2) by creating an
atmosphere of fair competition for free trade and providing equal
opportunities to all member-states; (3) by providing for adequate
and proper administrative infrastructure to make the SAFTA
operational, and to sort out differences; and (4) by providing for
appropriate machineries to extend to all member-states the
benefits of the agreement. Article 3 also enumerates the main
principles regarding the governance of the SAFTA. It says the
SAFTA shall be governed in accordance with the following
principles: (1) the SAFTA would be governed by the provisions of
this agreement and also by the rules, regulations, decisions,
understandings and protocols to be agreed upon within its
framework by the contracting states; (2) these states would affirm
their existing rights and obligations with respect to the World
Trade Organization and other treaties or agreements to which such
states are signatories; (3) the SAFTA shall be based and applied on
the principles of overall reciprocity and mutuality of advantages in
such a way as to benefit equitably all contracting states under
contract; (4) the SAFTA shall involve free movement of goods
between states, inter alia, through elimination of tariffs, para-
tariffs and non-tariff restrictions on the movement of goods, as
also through other equivalent measures; (5) the SAFTA shall entail
adoption of trade facilitation and other measures, and the
progressive harmonization of legislations by the contracting states
in the relevant areas; and (7) the special needs of the least-
developed contracting states shall be clearly recognized by
adopting concrete preferential measures in their favour on a non-
reciprocal basis.

The agreement, in its twenty-five articles, elaborates details of free

trade in the South Asian region. For instance, Article 7 discusses in
detail the measures required to be taken for implementation of
Trade Liberalization Programme in South Asia. It contains
provisions as well as methods of tariff reduction used by SAARC-
states in order to implement the SAFTA. Article 10 contains
provisions for developing adequate and appropriate infrastructure
to create a free trade area in the region. The special provisions for
least-developed economies in the SAARC are declared in Article 11.
The provisions for special concessions for Maldives are outlined in
Article 12. Article 16 elaborates in detail the safeguard measures
for the SAFTA, while Article 20 contains provisions for resolution
of differences among contracting parties. Article 21 gives rights to
the contracting parties to withdraw from the SAFTA. Article 24
states in detail the procedures for amending the agreement.

The creation of the SAFTA at the twelfth SAARC summit was

undoubtedly a major step in forging regional economic integration
in South Asia. In an era of globalization and trade liberalization,
economic cooperation among states must be given due priority.
Further, nations of a particular region may strive to achieve
regional economic development through the creation of Free Trade
Areas (FTA). The success of ASEAN and EU in achieving economic
development through FTA bears testimony to this proposition.
FTA also helps individual states of a region towards economic
development, because trade within a particular region is cost-
effective and it can save valuable foreign exchange for a particular
state. As a consequence, intra-regional trade actually benefits all
the states of the region. Considering all these advantages, the
creation of the SAFTA was indeed a welcome step towards regional
economic integration in South Asia. This agreement may also
facilitate a SAARC Customs Union and a common currency (such
as Euro), which the SAARC has plans to achieve in the future.

But the success of the SAFTA became dependent on the political

relationship between the two principal states of the region, India
and Pakistan. It, or even the SAARC, could not make much
headway due to political rivalry between the two major states in
the region. Since its inception, the SAFTA as well as its predecessor
SAPTA had practically remained dwarfs in regional trade. More
than a decade had passed since the introduction of the SAPTA in
1995, but trade among SAARC-states remained abysmally low;
intra-regional trade accounted for only 5.5 per cent of total trade of
SAARC-members in 2008. This shows how SAARC-members are
reluctant to instill life into the SAFTA. Politics is getting
precedence over economics in South Asia, while the trend is just
the opposite in other parts of the world. Cross-border terrorism,
political instability in several member-states, political rivalry
between two principal states, and, above all, the reluctance of
political elite in the region to go for meaningful economic
integration are some of the reasons for the no-show of the SAFTA.

But there is tremendous potential for the SAFTA, provided there is

the will to harness it. Business organizations like the Federation of
Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) opined that
the total intra-regional trade among SAARC-states, which was
around US $7 billion in 2005, could be doubled by 2012 provided
the existing tariffs were reduced within the stipulated time frame
of the SAFTA (as reported by Media Division of FICCI, New Delhi
on 3 January 2006). The agreement holds huge potential for intra-
regional trade growth because over 90 per cent of the imports by
South Asian states come from outside the region and a major part
of exports of South Asia go to states that are not part of the SAARC.
Nearly 5,500 tariff lines under the SAFTA have been liberalized
and are expected to move towards zero tariffs for non-LDCs (least
developed countries) by the year 2013 and for LDCs by 2016. But
unless the tariff lines cover items, which have trade potential and
member-states have small sensitive lists, the very purpose and
objectives of this agreement may remain unfulfilled.

The SAFTA may also enhance the attraction of South Asia as an

FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) destination due to concepts like
integrated market and liberalized trade. The foreign investors can
set base in one country of the region and cater to the supply chain
of the entire region. If South Asia becomes an integrated market, it
can draw a much higher FDI for the entire region with a huge
market size of over 1.5 billion people. The reduction in tariff rates
as planned by the SAFTA can multiply trade and commerce only if
it is complemented and supported by adequate infrastructure and
trade facilitation measures by member-governments. This includes
improving and strengthening the network of transportation in
roads, railways, air and seas; harmonization of custom regulations;
quality standards; easy visa regulations, and; dispute settlement
mechanism. But all these shall depend on the will of the political
elite of the region. The ASEAN and the EU have overcome many
political differences in order to achieve meaningful economic
integration. The SAARC can do the same provided there is the
inclination of the member-states to make it a forceful regional
organization.

The SAARC Social Charter

At the twelfth SAARC summit in Islamabad in 2004, Heads of

Government of member-states signed the Social Charter, originally
conceived at the tenth SAARC summit in Colombo in 1998. This
charter is an elaborate document that contains provisions of
cooperation among member-states in the social sector that
includes different areas like health; education; human resource
development; youth mobilization; welfare of women and children;
poverty alleviation; population stabilization, and rehabilitation of
drug addicts. It is an ambitious guideline that directs the SAARC
and its member-states to forge significant cooperation in social
sectors to improve the quality of life of the people of South Asia.
The Charter, in its twelve articles, recognizes the urgent need to
improve the social conditions of the people, which are inseparably
linked to economic development of the region. The opening
paragraphs of the charter reiterate the need to create a concerted
platform for this regional organization to work for social progress
of the South Asian region in words like these:

Observing that regional cooperation in the social

sector has received the focused attention of the
Member States and that specific areas such as
health, nutrition, food security, safe drinking water
and sanitation, population activities, and child
development and rights along with gender equality,
participation of women in development, welfare of
the elderly people. Youth mobilization and human
resources development continue to remain on the
agenda of regional cooperation Convinced that it
was time to develop a regional instrument which
consolidated the multifarious commitments of
SAARC Member States in the social sector and
provided a practical platform for concerted,
coherent and complementary action in determining
 social priorities, improving the structure and
content of social policies and programmes, ensuring
greater efficiency in the utilization of national,
regional and external resources and in enhancing
the equity and sustainability of social programmes
and the quality of living conditions of their
beneficiaries, the Member States of the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation hereby agree
to adopt this Charter.
Article II of the Social Charter is important in this context as it
outlines the principles, goals and objectives of this ambitious
programme. It says:

In the light of the commitments made in this

Charter, States Parties agree to: place people at the
center of development and direct their economies to
meet human needs more effectively; fulfill the
responsibility towards present and future
generations by ensuring equity among generations,
and protecting the integrity and sustainable use of
the environment; recognize that, while social
development is a national responsibility, its
successful achievement requires the collective
commitment and cooperation of the international
community; integrate economic, cultural and social
policies so that they become mutually supportive,
and acknowledge the interdependence of public and
private spheres of activity.…
Clearly, the objectives are noble and the SAARC would aim to fulfill
these objectives. In a region of acute poverty, social discrepancy
and gender inequality, the SAARC Social Charter is a step towards
the right direction.

Some of the goals of the Charter have been realized, although many
more areas need to be covered carefully. In the field of education,
the establishment of a South Asia University in New Delhi will help
foster increasing interactions among students, teachers and
academics in the region. Further, the creation of a SAARC
Development Fund (SDF) will also help realize the goals outlined
in the Charter. Under the social window of the SDF, projects on
women empowerment, maternal and child health, and teachers’
training would be implemented. In the fifteenth SAARC summit
held in Colombo in August 2008, leaders emphasized the need to
implement the objectives of the Charter quickly. The Declaration
following this summit noted:

The Heads of State or Government underscored the

imperative to make steady progress in the
implementation of the SAARC Social Charter and
directed the Member States to complete the
National Plans of Action with a perspective of
seeking to transform current challenges into
opportunities. They further directed the National
Coordination Committees (NCCs) to recommend
activities in conformity with the Social Charter and
to introduce an efficient and effective monitoring
and evaluation mechanism for reviewing the
progress in the implementation of the Social
Charter. The leaders emphasized the need to
implement the selected regional and sub regional
programs and projects to complement national
implementation efforts. They urged that such
activities be suitably accommodated in the SAARC
calendar. They called for people’s participation in
strategy initiatives, planning and implementation to
ensure people’s responsibility and ownership. The
leaders directed to develop a policy on the
protection of rights of the senior citizens for their
geriatric care taking into account existing national
policies of the Member States.
But mere lofty rhetoric would not help the cause of social
development programmes of the SAARC. Concrete and effective
actions are required by member-states to implement the ideals of
the Charter. It is pleasing to note that the SAARC is trying to
achieve the goals identified in the Social Charter in a planned and
phased manner.

Future of the SAARC

The SAARC is a relatively young regional organization burdened
with immense social, economic and political problems. It is the
world’s largest regional organization in terms of population, but
the smallest in terms of intra-regional trade. In a region infected
with poverty, social inequality, religious fanaticism, illiteracy,
unemployment, terrorist activities, and political rivalry among
members, this organization faces a real challenge in achieving
social and economic integration. The numerous problems speak for
the slow progress of the SAARC in achieving its cherished goals.
Despite the SAPTA and the SAFTA, economic integration and
development of the region are yet to be fulfilled; despite signing of
the Social Charter, upliftment of the poor and the underprivileged
of the region remains a dream. Persistent political rivalry between
the two principal states of South Asia has also affected the progress
of the SAARC. But the organization exists, and slowly but steadily
moves forward towards its goals. This is the most optimistic point.
Despite odds and intense political problems, the organization is
alive and taking new and newer initiatives for regional
development. The member-states have already realized the
importance of having a greater regional platform to initiate
dialogues and discussions on regional problems that could only be
tackled through mutual cooperation, and not individually by single
states.

Chambers of commerce in the region feel that the SAFTA has

immense potential, which could be realized if appropriate
measures are taken for its proper implementation. Though the
contribution of this agreement in the economic life of the region is
not yet apparent, the picture may be different in the future. If zero
tariffs are achieved by 2016, and other targeted goals realized by
that period, the SAFTA may enhance intra-regional trade
significantly and contribute towards economic development of the
region. Similarly, the objectives outlined in the SAARC Charter are
slowly yielding results, as analyses in the previous pages have
shown. The formal declaration after the fifteenth SAARC summit
in 2008 pointed out significant achievements in areas like women
empowerment; child development; transportation; education;
science and technology; tourism; environment; and information
and communications technology development. These are
undoubtedly brighter patches in the not-too-exciting history of the
SAARC. If such achievements are sustained, and more are added to
this list, and if there is political will on the part of member-states,
this regional organization will continue to flourish in the future.

ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN)

Origin and Members

The ASEAN was born in 1967 in Bangkok. Five states of South East
Asia formed the ASEAN mainly for political and security purposes.
These five states were Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines
and Singapore. They came together to form a regional organization
to seek a security cover against any apprehended threat from China
and Japan, the two powerful nations in the region. Although
ASEAN later turned into a successful economic organization, its
origin was linked to security fears of its founding members. For
seventeen long years, the organization consisted of the initial five
members. From 1984, the number of members started to increase.
That year, Brunei Darussalam (Brunei, in short,) joined and
became the sixth member. Vietnam joined in 1995 and Laos and
Myanmar in 1997. Cambodia became the tenth member—the last
so far—of the ASEAN in 1999. The permanent Secretariat of this
regional organization is located in Jakarta, the capital city of
Indonesia. Throughout the year, it coordinates various activities of
the organization in different parts of the world.

Objectives

The Bangkok Declaration of 1967, which founded the ASEAN,

elaborated the main objectives of the organization. It said that the
ASEAN would work for regional peace, stability and economic
development of South East Asia. Further, the organization would
engage itself in maintaining and advancing the rich cultural
heritage of the region. In the first ASEAN Summit held in Bali,
Indonesia, in 1976, some fundamental principles of the
organization were announced. The member-states signed a Treaty
of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) there. This treaty outlined the
fundamental principles of the ASEAN, which must be respected by
all members. These fundamental principles are: (1) mutual respect
for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and
national identity of member states; (2) recognition of the rights of
member-states to live independently without external interference
and pressure; (3) non-intervention in the internal affairs of
member-states; (4) peaceful resolution of differences among
member states; and (5) increasing meaningful cooperation among
members.

Organizational Structure

The ASEAN has a very strong organizational structure that has

contributed immensely towards its success. At the top of this
structure belongs the ASEAN Heads of Government (AHG). It is
the apex body which takes all major policy decisions of the
organization. This body meets ‘formally’ every three years. This
formal meeting of the AHG is also known as the ASEAN Summit.
But the AHG sits every year ‘informally’ to make policies and
review programmes of the organization. In both its ‘formal’ and
‘informal’ meetings, crucial policy decisions are adopted and
ASEAN activities reviewed and analysed. Table 9.2 highlights
ASEAN Summits and Informal Summits since 1976, the year when
the first ASEAN Summit took place at Bali, Indonesia. The table
shows that ASEAN summits, both formal and informal, have been
held regularly since 1995, although in the initial years, which could
be termed as years of consolidation for the organization, summits
were not held on a regular basis.

Next to the AHG in the organizational structure comes the ASEAN

Ministerial Meeting (AMM). Normally, foreign ministers of
member-states meet every year in this forum to review and
implement policies and programmes of the organization. But other
ministers may also meet under the AMM depending upon issues
and programmes. For instance, if the ASEAN decides to have a
programme on environmental issues, ministers of member-states
related to environment matters would meet under the AMM. A
body functioning parallel to the AMM is the ASEAN Economic
Ministers (AEM). In this body, Economic Ministers of member-
states meet once or more in a year to discuss the economic policies
and programmes of the organization. ASEAN’s tremendous
emphasis on economic activities could be observed from the
creation of the AEM alongside AMM. As per norms of the
organization, both these bodies place their joint reports to the AHG
during the ASEAN summit.
 

Table 9.2: ASEAN Summits and ‘Informal Summits’: 1976–2010

Next in the organizational hierarchy comes the Sectoral Ministers

Meeting (SMM). In this body, ministers related to near-economic
activities meet as per requirements to formulate programmes and
review activities. Under the SMM falls ministries like commerce
and industry, tourism, transport, agriculture and forestry. Parallel
to this body remains other Non-Economic ASEAN Ministerial
Meetings (N-E-AMMs). In this forum, ministers of non-economic
departments meet as per requirements to plan and review agenda.
Under N-E-AMM comes ministries like health, education, social
welfare, science and technology, and labour. Therefore, ministers
of health of member-governments can meet and discuss issues at
the N-E-AMM. There is another body called the Joint Ministerial
Meeting (JMM). This forum normally meets before the ASEAN
summit. Under JMM, foreign and economic ministers of member-
states meet before the summit to coordinate the policies and
programmes of these two important departments in the ASEAN
agenda.

To supervise the activities of the ASEAN all the year round, a

Secretary-General is elected by member-states for a term of five
years. The Secretary-General is appointed by the AHG on the
recommendation of the AMM. They submit their report to the
AHG, and remain accountable to this body. They preside over the
meetings of the ASEAN Standing Committee (ASC). The ASC
coordinates activities of different bodies of the ASEAN throughout
the year, and also maintains contact with member states. Next to
the ministerial-level bodies in the organization, there is an
extensive network of official-level bodies like Senior Officials
Meeting (SOM), Senior Economic Officials Meeting (SEOM), Other
ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting (OASOM), and ASEAN National
Secretariats (ANS). The ANS are located in the foreign ministries
of the member-governments, and their main task is to implement
ASEAN programmes in their respective states. ASEAN Committees
in Third Countries (ACTC) are responsible for promoting
programmes of this regional organization in non-member states.
The success of the ASEAN in recent years has been possible due to
this extensive and very strong organizational network.

Other Collaborative Forums

Apart from this main organizational structure, the ASEAN has also
developed—with nonmembers—very important international
collaborative forums to promote its interests. In its initial years,
the ASEAN had provided the ‘dialogue partner’ label to ten states
and organizations. These are: Australia, Canada, China, European
Union, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Russia and the
USA. The dialogue partners are also known as the ASEAN-10. In
2006, it was given observer status at the UN General Assembly. In
response, it made the UN a dialogue partner the same year. It
further extended its cooperation to the three major countries of
South East Asia— China, Japan and South Korea—to create the
ASEAN-3 in 1999. Although the ASEAN was initially apprehensive
about China and Japan on grounds of security, with its increasing
emphasis on economy, it felt the necessity to establish cordial
relations with these three major economies of the region. Its
economic success also drew these three states towards establishing
ties with this organization and creating ASEAN-3. In 1994, it
created the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) with twenty-two
nations. The purpose for the creation of the ARF was to work for
peace, security and economic development in the Asia-Pacific
region. Ten ASEAN members, along with ten dialogue partners
and two observers (Mongolia and Papua New Guinea), came
together to create the ARF. The membership of the ARF has
increased. With five new members included, the total in 2010 is
twenty-seven. These five new members are Bangladesh, North
Korea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste. In 2005, an East
Asian Summit (EAS) was created under the auspices of the ASEAN
with sixteen member-states which include ASEAN members,
ASEAN-3, and India, Australia and New Zealand. The EAS was a
prerequisite to a proposed East Asian Community (EAC). So far,
three East Asian Summits were held in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The
fourth summit took place in 2009. Further, the ASEAN has
completed Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with China, Japan, South
Korea, Australia and New Zealand. It has plans to launch an
ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. The signing of the FTA
with different countries has given a big boost to an already
flourishing ASEAN economy. ASEAN has also established
diplomatic relations with several individual nations in the world.
This extensive network of international collaborative mechanism
has benefited the association in significant ways like strengthening
its economy, and consolidating its political standing in a new
international order after the Cold War.

ASEAN Free Trade Area and Related Free Trade Agreements

At the fourth ASEAN Summit in Singapore in 1992, the ASEAN

Free Trade Area (AFTA) was launched. The ASEAN had earlier
created the ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangement (APTA) in
1977. The AFTA has given tremendous boost to regional economy
as well as to individual national economies. In 1993, a year after
the launch of the AFTA, the volume of intra-ASEAN trade was US
$43.26 billion. It increased to US $80 billion in 1996. In 2006, the
volume of intra-ASEAN trade reached a staggering US $352.75
billion (all figures from the web site of the ASEAN Secretariat). In
comparison, intra-SAARC trade was a little over US $7 billion in
2006. In 2008, the volume of intra-regional trade in the ASEAN
amounted to more than 50 per cent of the total trade of the
member-states, while it was 15 per cent in 1967, when the
association was formed. Compared to that, intra-regional trade in
the SAARC was 5.5 per cent of the total trade of SAARC-members
in 2008.

The organization has created the ASEAN Comprehensive

Investment Area (ACIA) to encourage free flow of investment
within the ASEAN. The ACIA aims to achieve the following: (1)
elimination of investment impediments; (2) streamlining of
investment processes and procedures; (3) enhancement of
transparency; (4) immediate grant of national treatment to ASEAN
investors; (5) undertaking of investment facilitation measures; and
(6) opening of all industries for investment, with a few exclusions.
Full realization of the ACIA—with the removal of temporary
exclusion lists in manufacturing, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and
mining—is scheduled to be achieved for most ASEAN members by
2010 and for Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam by 2015. The
ASEAN has concluded free trade agreements with China, South
Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Further, free trade
agreements with India and the European Union are on the anvil.

The ASEAN Charter

The members of the ASEAN launched the ASEAN Charter in

Jakarta on 15 December 2008. It was earlier signed by member-
states at the thirteenth ASEAN Summit in Singapore in November
2007, with the aim of moving closer to an ‘EU-style community’.
The charter turned the ASEAN into a legal entity and aims to
create a single free-trade area for the region encompassing 500
million people. Some of its objectives are: (1) respect for the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of member-
states; (2) peaceful settlement of disputes; (3) non-interference in
internal affairs of member-states; (4) right to live without external
interference; (5) establishment of a human rights body and an
unresolved dispute mechanism, to be decided at ASEAN summits;
(6) development of friendly external relations with international
organizations like the UN; and (7) increasing the number of
ASEAN summits to twice a year and the ability to meet in
emergency situations.

The ongoing global financial crisis (2008–09) was referred to in

the charter as a threat to the goals envisioned by the charter, but
the ASEAN was convinced that the crisis could be overcome.

The ASEAN: An Evaluation

When the ASEAN started its journey in 1967, the region of South
East Asia was much diverse politically, culturally, and in its socio-
economic areas. The region had a communist giant like China, an
economic stalwart like Japan with its pro-capitalist leanings,
emerging economies like Singapore and South Korea, and vastly
poor areas like Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand.
The founding members of the ASEAN wanted to avoid both China
and Japan, the regional bigwigs, and representatives of the
communist and the capitalist world. But the success of the
organization was in great doubt without these regional powers.
Initially, through the mechanism called the ASEAN, the founding
members wanted to have a security cover around themselves to
thwart any possible aggression from China or South Korea, or
economic suzerainty by Japan. But gradually, when these fears
started to lessen, the ASEAN concentrated more on economic
activities and the turnaround began to be noticed. The economic
integration of this greatly diverse region gradually helped to
eliminate political and security differences, and instilled
confidence in member-states as well as non-member countries of
the ASEAN about the prospects of this organization.

The success of the ASEAN in economic integration has been

noteworthy. The steady growth of intra-ASEAN trade over the
years remains a testimony to this proposition. Members also
benefited from intra-ASEAN trade and foreign direct investment
into the region which was quite significant since the 1980s. But the
ASEAN’s records in non-economic areas have not been as
spectacular. Its interaction with civil society institutions and its
role in the promotion of democracy and human rights among
member-states are not very satisfactory. Its role in facilitating a
democratic government in Myanmar is negligible. It is true that the
ASEAN works on the principle of non-interference into members’
internal affairs. However, it could pressurize Myanmar in several
other ways to establish democracy and human rights in that
country. The Bali Concord II, adopted by the ASEAN in 2003,
upheld the notion of ‘democratic peace’ which asserted members’
faith in democracy to establish regional peace and stability. The
rule of Military Junta in Myanmar is contrary to the pledge of Bali
Accord II. It is alleged by critics that ASEAN business has been
managed through close interpersonal contacts among the political
elites only, which often show a reluctance to institutionalize and
legalize cooperation that can undermine their regime’s control over
regional cooperation. As a consequence, interaction of the ASEAN
with civil society institutions remained at its minimum.

In spite of such criticisms, it should be acknowledged that the

success of the ASEAN has outweighed its defects. Its achievements,
especially in economic areas, have been recognized by all major
states of the world, and international organizations including the
UN. It is expected that its charter would go a long way in
eradicating the shortcomings of the ASEAN and make it a very
successful regional organization. The promise in the charter to
create a human rights body and a dispute resolve mechanism could
bring in expected changes in the organization. Nevertheless, the
ASEAN has already made a mark as an important regional
organization, and it should be remembered for what it has
achieved over the years and not for what it could achieve.

THE EUROPEAN UNION

Origin

Today’s European Union (EU) came into existence in 1993, after

the Masstricht Treaty,—signed in 1991 in the Dutch city of
Masstricht to form the EU,—was ratified by the national
parliaments of twelve signing countries. The recent Lisbon Treaty
that was signed by member-states in Lisbon, the capital of
Portugal, in December 2007, made the EU more efficient and
effective to take on the challenges of the twenty-first century. The
treaty finally came in to effect in December 2009. It made several
significant reforms in the structural and functional areas of the EU,
to make it a new-look organization compared to what it was after
the Masstricht treaty. The reforms made by the Lisbon Treaty will
be analysed later, but before that, we must know about the origin
of the European Union.

The formation of the EU was the outcome of a long historical

process that started after the Second World War. The formation of
a regional organization in Europe for economic growth after the
Second World War was the brainchild of two French politicians,
Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman. They planned the formation of
this organization to control and enhance business related to coal
and steel, the two principal items for industrial development at
that time. This idea, which later came to be known as the Schuman
Plan (Schuman was the Foreign Minister of France), was
materialized through the creation of the European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC) in 1950. France, Germany, Italy, and three
Benelux countries—Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg—
joined hands to form the ECSC. Its purpose was to bring the coal
and steel industries of these six countries under one regulatory
authority to maintain uniform rates in buying and selling of coal
and steel, and to control these industries in the six countries. The
ECSC was largely under private control, and its management used
to keep close links with the Labour Unions of coal and steel
industries.

In 1952, the six members of the ECSC formed a European Defence

Community (EDC) by another treaty. The objective of the EDC was
to create a Unified Military Command in Europe with contribution
of defence personnel from members of the ECSC and other willing
states. But the unified military command could not be created due
to differences of opinion between France and Britain. The ECSC
countries also attempted to form a European Political Community
in 1953, but this plan too failed due to differences among member-
states. A major step towards a unified Europe was the Treaty of
Rome of 1957. By this treaty, the ECSC countries formed two very
important regional organizations of Europe, the European Atomic
Energy Community (also known as the Euratom) and the
European Economic Community (EEC). It may be mentioned here
that the ECSC was the first regional organization in Europe after
the Second World War, and its members endeavoured to build the
concept of a ‘unified Europe’. It was due to their efforts that the
Euratom and the EEC were formed. The EEC later came to be
known as the Economic Community (EC), and also as the Common
Market of Europe, where trade without barriers, political or
economic, could be carried out. It was considered the real
predecessor of today’s European Union, because the concept of
economic integration on a regional basis was introduced for the
first time in the EEC. The idea of Free Trade Area (FTA), which
became popular in the era of globalization, was mooted
successfully in Europe by the EEC. Similar to the EEC, the EU
today is also trying to achieve economic integration for Europe.
In accordance with provisions in the Treaty of Rome, a Customs
Union was created by the ECSC members in 1969. The main
objective of this union was to achieve a unified rate of tariffs for its
members. The concept of common market was also introduced by
these members, and the common market facilitated the
unhindered movement of goods, labour and capital among the six
countries. In 1960, a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was
created by the EEC to regulate agriculture-related activities and
business. The idea of the common market gradually became
popular in Europe, and three more nations, Britain, Ireland and
Denmark, joined the EEC in 1973, Greece joined in 1981, and
Portugal and Spain in 1986. The community started to become
truly ‘European’ with the joining of new members.

The Treaty of Rome (1957) was drastically amended in 1986, and

the Single European Act thereby passed to expedite the process of a
unified Europe. In 1987, the European Parliament was made more
representative by allowing more members to become part of it. The
European Court of Justice (ECJ), established in 1957, was also
strengthened. It was given the power to annul any national law that
might contravene the Single European Act. Experts consider the
ECJ more powerful than the International Court of Justice of the
United Nations. The amendments made in the Treaty of Rome in
1986 immensely helped in consolidating the concept of the
integration of Europe, and paved ways for the creation of a
European Union.

In 1991, twelve EEC members met in Masstricht to further

strengthen the concept of an integrated Europe. These twelve
members were Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and
Spain. A treaty was signed in Masstricht to change the name of the
European Economic Community to European Union. It was
decided that this treaty would come into effect after the national
parliaments of the twelve signing members ratified it. This
ratification process took two more years, and the European Union
came into existence on 1 November 1993, after the ratification
process was complete. In 1995, the Schengen Treaty was signed by
members of the EU to facilitate borderless travel, which effectively
means travel across the member states with a single passport. The
Masstricht Treaty not only created the European Union, it also
outlined the future programmes of the organization. It set three
major goals for the EU. The first of these goals was the creation of a
monetary union for the EU, whose main objective would be to
introduce a common currency for member-states of the union
instead of separate national currencies. Accordingly, ‘euro’, a
common currency, was introduced in 1999 in several member-
states. It replaced the earlier national currencies (like Franc, Lira
or Marc) of these states. At this moment (2010), euro has been
accepted by sixteen member countries of the EU, and more are
likely to introduce this common currency. The second goal set by
the treaty was the creation of a European Police Agency (EPA) to
check various types of crimes, mainly in the border areas. The third
objective is to achieve political and military unity of Europe. A
unified military command and a common foreign policy for
member-states are parts of this objective. But this third goal would
be difficult to realize for the EU because it might infringe upon the
sovereignty of member-states. Nevertheless, the introduction of
the euro in several states and the creation of the EPA are major
achievements on the part of the European Union, which has
consolidated itself as a regional organization, helped immensely by
sixty years (1950–2010) of invaluable experience in regional
integration in modern times.

Membership and Organizational Structure

From twelve in 1993, the membership of the European Union has

risen to twenty-seven at present. Membership will expand further
as a few candidates like Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey will join
the union soon. The present twenty-seven members are: Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United
Kingdom. The EU has named Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Montenegro and Serbia as potential candidates. To join the EU, a
country must meet the Copenhagen criteria, defined at the 1993
Copenhagen European Council meeting. These criteria include: (1)
a stable democracy which respects human rights and the rule of
law; (2) a functioning market economy capable of competition
within the EU; and (3) the acceptance of the obligations of
membership, including EU law. Evaluation of a country’s appeal
for membership and fulfilment of the criteria is the responsibility
of the European Council.

The organizational structure of the EU is rather simple as

compared to the extensive and complex one of the ASEAN. At the
top of this structure is the European Council, consisting of Heads
of Government (HOGs) of the member-states. At present, twenty-
seven HOG from twenty-seven member-states make the European
Council, which is the highest decision-making body of the
organization. The council is headed by a system of rotating
presidency, with every member-state assuming the responsibility
of the President of the European Council for six months. Next to
the European Council in the organizational hierarchy is the Council
of Ministers, consisting normally of foreign ministers of member-
states. It adopts policies and programmes for the EU and places
them for approval with the European Council. In the Council of
Ministers, other ministers may join and discuss policies depending
upon the agenda. Thus, if there is an agenda on health, health
ministers of all member-states may join this council. After the
Council of Ministers in the organizational structure comes the
European Commission, which is the pivotal organ of the EU. The
commission now consists of twenty-seven commissioners from
member-states, appointed for a term of four years, with provisions
for re-appointment. It supervises the activities of the union
throughout the year. The commissioners nominate one person as
the President of the Commission from among them. The
responsibility for implementation of the policies adopted by the
European Council lies with the Commission. The council meets the
President of the European Commission twice a year to discuss
implementation of the policies and programmes of the union. The
commission also controls the staff of the EU, known as the
Eurocrats. The headquarters of the EU is situated in Brussels, the
capital city of Belgium.

Apart from these three bodies (European Council, Council of

Ministers and European Commission), other prominent
institutions in the EU are the European Parliament, the European
Court of Justice, and the Economic and Social Committee. The
European Parliament has been given some powers recently. The
785 members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are directly
elected every five years by citizens under the union. Although
MEPs are elected on a national basis, they sit according to political
groups rather than their nationality. Each country has a set
number of seats. The Parliament and the European Council form
and pass legislation jointly, using co-decision, in several areas of
policy. The Parliament also has the power to reject or censure the
budget of the European Commission and the EU. The President of
the Parliament also carries out the role of the speaker in the
Parliament and represents it externally. The President and the
vice-presidents are elected by MEPs every two and a half years.
The judicial branch of the EU consists of the European Court of
Justice (ECJ) and the Court of First Instance (CFI). Together, they
interpret and apply the treaties and the laws of the union. The CFI
deals mainly with cases taken by individuals and companies
directly before the EU’s courts; and the ECJ with cases taken by
member-states and institutions, as also cases referred to it by the
courts of member-states. Decisions of the CFI can be appealed
against at the ECJ, but only on a valid legal point. Member-states
of the European Union are responsible for their own territorial
defence.

The European Union Today

The EU has traversed a long way since its formation with the
Masstricht Treaty of 1993. Several new members have joined the
organization, many new policies and programmes were
undertaken, and norms and laws were changed to keep pace with
time. A few more treaties were signed by member-states to meet
new challenges faced by the EU. Prominent among these was the
Amsterdam Treaty, which was signed in 1996 and became effective
in 1999. This treaty called for the creation of more jobs within the
EU, sustainable development of the environment, and protection
of consumer rights. The Treaty of Nice, which came into force in
2003 (and was signed in 2001), wanted to make the union more
efficient and streamlined. For this purpose, it proposed a reduction
in the number of Eurocrats, which was nearly 15,000 at the
beginning of the twenty-first century. The Lisbon Treaty, that came
into effect in December 2009, has given more power to the
European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The
 salient features of the treaty, that made important reforms in the
European Union, are given in Box 9.1.

Today’s EU is an economic powerhouse. Since its origin, it has

established a single economic market across the territories of all its
members. Considered a single economy, this regional organization
generated an estimated nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of
US $18.39 trillion (based on purchasing power parity or PPP) in
2008, amounting to over 22 per cent of the world’s total economic
output in terms of purchasing power parity. This makes the EU the
largest economy in the world on the basis of nominal GDP and the
second largest trade bloc economy in the world based on PPP
valuation of GDP. It is also the largest exporter of goods, the
second largest importer, and one of the biggest trading partners to
several large countries such as India, China and Brazil. More than
one-third of the 500 largest corporations in the world (Fortune
500 companies), measured by revenue, have their headquarters in
the EU. The euro, within a decade of its introduction in 1999, has
become one of the strongest currencies in the world. The success of
the EU in achieving economic integration in the continent could be
ascertained from the fact that more and more countries are
showing interest in joining it. Many of these countries include the
former East Bloc nations who want to be part of the mainstream
economic development process of Europe today, and they have
found in the union a very effective forum to realize their economic
and political objectives.

Box 9.1: Major Reforms of the EU Introduced by Lisbon Treaty (2009)

1. A more democratic and transparent Europe: The treaty has provided for a strengthened role for
the European Parliament and national parliaments, more opportunities for citizens to have their voices
heard and a clearer sense of who does what at European and national levels. It explicitly recognizes, for the
first time, the possibility for a member-state to withdraw from the union.
2. A more efficient Europe: The treaty, with simplified working methods and voting rules,
streamlined modern institutions for a EU of twenty-seven members and an improved ability to act in areas
of priority for today’s union.
3. A Europe of rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security: It also promoted the union’s
values, by introducing the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European primary law, and providing for
new solidarity mechanisms, and ensuring better protection of European citizens.
4. Europe as an actor on the global stage: The treaty seeks to achieve this goal by bringing together
Europe’s external policy tools, both when developing and deciding new policies. The treaty gives Europe a
clear voice in relations with its partners worldwide. It harnesses Europe’s economic, humanitarian, political
and diplomatic strengths to promote European interests and values worldwide, while respecting particular
interests of the member-states in foreign affairs.

Adopted with changes from the web site of the European Union

http://europa.eu./lisbon_treaty/glance/index_eu.htm/. Retrieved
on 28 March 2010.

However, there are grey areas within the European Union. In May
2007, unemployment in the union stood at 7 per cent while
investment was at 21.4 per cent of GDP; inflation was 2.2 per cent
and public deficit -0.9 per cent of GDP. Moreover, there is a great
deal of variance in annual per capita income within individual EU
states, ranging from US $7,000 in poorer states (mainly in the
East) to US $69,000 in rich countries. Compared to the EU
average, the US GDP per capita is 35 per cent higher and the
Japanese GDP per capita is approximately 15 per cent higher. The
union currently imports 82 per cent of its oil, 57 per cent of its gas
and 97.48 per cent of its uranium demands (all statistics in this
section are from the official EU website). There is the concern that
this organization is largely dependent on other countries, primarily
Russia, for its energy sources, and any adverse relations with
Russia may hinder its progress. The financial crisis in Greece in
2010 also posed challenges to the EU. Differences between France
and Germany over the ways to resolve the crisis, and EU’s role in
this matter, made the EU appear like a disunited organization.
Despite these shortcomings, the EU has emerged, due to its success
noted earlier, as one of the most successful regional organizations
in the world, with important economic and political clout in
international affairs.

The Future of the Union

The dream of a unified Europe is nothing new. Through ages,

statesmen and the political elite have tried to achieve this dream.
This desire could be noticed in Bismarck and Garibaldi; the
aggression of Napoleon and Hitler also reflected their desire to
bring the whole of Europe under their command. This dream has
survived across ages in some form or the other, and the European
Union was its latest manifestation. But at the same time, it is also
true that Europe could never be unified politically or economically
despite several attempts. The idea of a unified Europe had always
remained out of bounds. This dichotomy leads one to ponder over
the future of the EU, its acceptability in all parts of the continent,
and its possible challenges. It is now well known that the formation
of the union was never an easy task. Member-states had prolonged
debates in domestic political circles before becoming part of either
the EEC or the EU. Britain is a case in point. The conservative
government of Margaret Thatcher was reluctant to join the EEC
fearing that a common market might be detrimental for Britain’s
developed economy. Later, the Labour Government of John Major
decided to join the EEC. Further, the introduction of a Customs
Union or a common currency faced several hurdles. Even today,
the euro has not been accepted by several member-states; notable
among them are Britain, Denmark and Sweden, considered as
leading economies in Europe. Unless a uniform bank interest rate
is introduced, inflation is controlled, and national income achieves
some sort of parity in member-states; it would be difficult to
introduce euro in all states, especially in the developed ones. This
poses a challenge to the concept of a single monetary union in the
EU.

Politically, Russia’s lukewarm response to be a part of the

European Union may prove to be a serious hurdle in its march to
the East. If Russia does not join eventually, the union’s dream of a
unified Europe would get a severe jolt, not only politically but also
economically, because it is dependent on Russia for its energy
resources. Moreover, a militarily powerful non-member like Russia
may bring in trouble for it. Along with Russia, a few former Soviet
states have also stayed away from the EU casting doubts about its
acceptability. Further, the EU’s slow progress in achieving a
unified military command and a common foreign policy highlights
the unwillingness of member-states to place it above national
interests.

Despite these challenges faced by the EU, it must be remembered

that it is not a supranational organization. It pays due respect to
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member-states, and, like
any other regional organization, does not impose its will upon the
members. The EU is also considering a proposal under the Lisbon
Treaty to allow members to withdraw from the organization. But
more and more countries in Europe, including former East Bloc
nations, are joining it. This reveals the growing credibility of the
organization. Besides its goal of economic integration of Europe, it
has also been focusing on socio-political, cultural, educational,
scientific and environmental development of the ‘Euro zone’ that
consists of territories of member-states. The activities of the union
not only benefit itself, it helps the member-states as well,
particularly the developing ones. Since the formation of the union,
members with weaker economies have reaped rich benefits
through preferential and barrier-less trade with the developed
parts of Europe. The developed economies have also been
benefited because new and large markets have opened up for them
through the EU. The success of the European Union as an
economic organization is attracting both non-members and third
parties in other parts of the world. Consequently, it is growing and
is poised to expand further in the coming years.

THE AFRICAN UNION

Origin and Membership

Today’s African Union (AU) is the continuation of the earlier

Organization of African Unity (OAU), established on 25 May 1963
in Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia. The main objective of the OAU
was to achieve unity among African nations and to work for the
development of the region. It started its journey in 1963 with
thirty-two member-states. Its name was changed to the African
Union at its Durban Conference in 2002. Currently, the AU has
fifty-three member-states, including three suspended ones. Almost
all states in the African continent are its members. Box 9.2 lists the
current members (2010) of the AU.

Box 9.2: Current Member-States of the African Union

Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi,

Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros,
Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho,
Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Western Sahara (SADR), São Tomé and
Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa,
Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe

The three suspended members are Mauritania (suspended after

the coup d’état of 2008), Guinea (suspended after the coup d’état
of 2008) and Madagascar (suspended after the Malagasy political
crisis of 2009). Morocco left the OAU in 1984, and has since then
remained out of the erstwhile OAU and the present AU. A member
must adhere to the principles and objectives of the African Union
which are to promote cooperation among member-states through
mutual respect of each member’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity.

Organizational Structure

The AU works mainly through ten principal institutions. They are:

(1) the Assembly; (2) the Executive Council ; (3) the Commission;
(4) the Pan-African Parliament; (5) the African Court of Justice;
(6) the Permanent Representative Commission; (7) the Specialized
Technical Commissions; (8) the Economic, Social, and Cultural
Council; (9) the Peace and Security Council; and (10) the Financial
Institutions. As their names suggest, these bodies work in different
fields that include social, cultural, political, economic, technical,
peace and security, legal, and juridical areas. The first three
institutions are the administrative bodies of the AU. The Assembly
remains at the top in the organizational hierarchy, and is
composed of the Heads of Government or Heads of State of
member-states. It meets once a year to make policy decisions for
the organization. Next comes the Executive Council (EC). It is a
forum of foreign ministers and other ministers (depending on the
issue under consideraton) and is responsible for implementing the
policies taken by the assembly. The EC meets twice a year to review
the works of the AU, and recommends issues to the assembly for
consideration. In reality, the EC is the main policy-making body
and the assembly merely approves its decisions. The Commission
is the third important administrative body of the AU. Formerly, it
was known as the Secretariat. It supervises the activities of the
union throughout the year. The Chairperson of the commission
(formerly the Secretary-General) is the administrative head, and
coordinates work among different bodies of the AU. The
commission is accountable to the assembly. It has its headquarters
in Addis Ababa.

The Pan-African Parliament under the African Union, situated at

Midrand, South Africa, is composed of 265 elected representatives
from all the fifty-three member-states. Apart from discussion,
debates and legislation over matters related to the union, the
Parliament also ensures civil society participation in the
functioning of the union. The African Court of Justice has been set
up to give its ruling in disputes over interpretation of AU treaties.
The Permanent Representatives’ Committee consists of nominated
permanent representatives of member-states; it decides the work
to be done by the Executive Council. The Peace and Security
Council (PSC) intends to work as a collective security mechanism
and plans to facilitate early warning arrangement for timely and
effective response to conflict and crisis situations in Africa. Other
responsibilities of the PSC include prevention, management and
resolution of conflicts; and post-conflict peacebuilding and
development of common defence policies. The PSC has fifteen
members elected on a regional basis by the assembly.

The Economic, Social and Cultural Council is an advisory organ

composed of professional and civic representatives from member-
states. Specialized Technical Committees (STC) have been
proposed to be set up, and they are not yet functional. The ten
proposed areas on which STC would be set up are: (1) energy,
natural resources and environment; (2) trade and customs; (3)
labour and social affairs; (4) rural economy and agricultural
matters; (5) monetary and financial affairs; (6) industry, science
and technology; (7) transport, communications and tourism; (8)
health; (9) education, culture, and human resources; and (10)
transport, communications and tourism. Financial institutions
have also been proposed. These include: (1) the African Central
Bank in Abuja, Nigeria; (2) the African Investment Bank in Tripoli,
Libya; and (3) the African Monetary Fund, to be located in
Yaounde, Cameroon. Eventually, the AU aims to have a single
currency (the Afro), like the euro.

The AU (and the Former OAU) at Work

The main purpose of establishing the OAU was to achieve unity
among African nations and to speed up the process of de-
colonization in the African continent that had started after the
Second World War. The OAU was not a military coalition like the
NATO; it was founded with the aim to achieve political unification
in Africa, although it also endeavoured to achieve economic
integration in the continent after the Cold War. But political
unification of a continent torn in conflicts and civil wars was not an
easy proposition. The OAU struggled a lot in its initial years to
survive as an effective regional organization. For instance, it was
practically divided over the issue of civil war in Angola. Angola,
which was under Portuguese rule for a long time, became
independent in 1974. But soon after the Portuguese relinquished
power, different political groups in Angola were engaged in a
bloody civil war to capture state power while Cold War politics
added fuel to the fire. One political group known as the Popular
Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) was supported by
the Soviet Union and its allies; while opposing groups like the
National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) and the
National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) was
aided by the US and its allies. In 1975, the OAU organized a vote
over the issue of formation of the government in Angola, where the
organization’s internal squabbles came to light. Half of the
members supported the MPLA while the other half supported the
FNLA and the UNITA. As a consequence, the union was not in a
position to solve the crisis in Angola. Its lack of unity also came to
the fore over issues like military intervention in Katanga province
of the then Zaire (now Congo) in 1977–78; Somalia’s attack of
Ethiopia in 1978; and war between Uganda and Tanzania in 1978–
79. Further, in 1981, Morocco, along with a few members, opposed
the inclusion of western Sahara into the organization with the
status of an independent nation. The animosity over the issue
reached such a point that Morocco relinquished membership of the
OAU. These events substantiate the fact that the OAU was not very
successful in achieving unity in African continent in the 1970s and
1980s.

But the history of the OAU is not altogether a story of failures. In

1965, it succeeded in resolving border disputes between Algeria
and Morocco. It was able to solve border conflicts between Somalia
and Ethiopia, and between Somalia and Kenya, during 1968 and
1970. It played a much commendable role in the process of de-
colonization in Africa in the 1960s and 1970s, as also thereafter.
During this period, the OAU actively helped countries like Guinea
Bissau, Angola and Mozambique in their freedom struggles against
Portuguese rule. It was mainly due to its efforts that these three
states got independence in 1974. Moreover, it fought intensely the
menace of Apartheid in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia.
South Africa was suspended from the OAU for practising
Apartheid. In 1994, it regained its membership of the organization
after it officially announced the end of Apartheid policies. In 1986,
the OAU formed the African Commission on Human and People’s
Rights with a view to safeguard human rights and the fundamental
freedoms of the people of Africa. All these activities of the OAU
immensely helped the member-states as well as the people of
Africa, and contributed towards strengthening African unity.

With the aim to facilitate economic integration of Africa through

free trade, the members of the OAU formed the African Economic
Community (AEC) in 1994. The 1990s was, in fact, a decade of
resuscitation for the OAU under the able leadership of the then
Secretary-General Salim Ahmed Salim. He was instrumental in the
introduction of new economic and social policies in the
organization and for bringing about dynamism in its functioning.
In 1992, Salim created a Peace Fund to encourage its member-
states in avoiding political conflicts and working towards
establishment of peace. The main purpose behind the creation of
this fund was to rehabilitate victims of political conflicts, to
dissuade states from engaging in political conflicts, and to
campaign for peace. In 1993, the OAU also sent a peacekeeping
force to stop civil war in Liberia. Salim, a popular leader from
Tanzania, served three terms as the Secretary-General of the OAU.
Under his efficient leadership, the organization scaled new heights
to achieve political unity and economic integration—its principal
goals—in Africa.

An Evaluation of the AU

The AU, and the OAU, its immediate predecessor, had many
daunting tasks before them. Realizing programmes like de-
colonization, anti-apartheid, or political and economic integration
of Africa were indeed great challenges for the organization. The
OAU also had to tackle problems like intense political rivalries
among member-states or civil wars among opposing political
groups within the territories of a number of member-states. At
times, these political crises threatened to divide and break the
organization. But it continued to act as an umbrella organization
which tried to provide peace and security to its members. The
performance of the OAU was mixed in this regard—it failed to
bring peace to warring zones on several occasions; while at other
times, it was able to provide peace and security to the people of
troubled areas in Africa. It helped many African states to achieve
freedom from colonial rulers, to fight the menace of apartheid, and
to strive towards economic development. The 1970s and the 1980s
were troubled times for the OAU, mainly due to socio-political
problems in the member-states. This was also the period of
consolidation and maturity for the organization. In comparison,
since the 1990s it was a period of progression when the OAU
launched several new economic and socio-political programmes;
the union changed its name in 2002.

If the OAU dealt mainly with socio-political issues, the African

Union concentrated more on economic issues, keeping pace with
the changing demands of time. The future plans of the AU to
establish a monetary union for Africa—along the lines of the EU—
include the creation of a free trade area, a customs union, a single
market, a central bank, and a common currency. The union aims at
having a single currency for Africa by 2023. Its emphasis on
economic issues may usher in new hopes for an economically poor
Africa, which lags behind several of its states in terms of GDP. The
GDP of all these states stands at a nominal US $500 billion—which
is lower than that of many of them individually—while they
together had a debt of US $200 billion in 2008. Africa, an
economically backward continent, needs strong economic policies
for resurgence, and the AU is working positively in that direction.

Emphasis on economic programmes does not in any way

undermine the challenges faced by the AU in social and political
spheres. Africa is still in political turmoil with severe political
crises in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia and Mauritania. Political
rivalry among warring groups, leading to problems of governance,
is the main reason behind political crises in these states. Keeping
in with one of its objectives—to ‘promote peace, security, and
stability in the continent’— the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of
the AU is actively engaged in negotiating peace through
peacekeeping operations in these areas. Social problems like
illiteracy, poverty, health hazards and environmental degradation,
to name a few, are real challenges for the union. Africa ranks very
high in cases of malaria and AIDS, as also in the rate of literacy and
level of poverty. The union has proposed specialized technical
committees (STCs) to deal with such issues. Hopefully, with the
guidance of the AU, Africa would be able to resolve these problems
in the future.

The African Union has not been as successful as the EU or the

ASEAN, because it had to face more political problems within the
organization than them. The process of economic integration
started mach earlier in them, and they reaped great benefits from
such programmes. The AU started the process of economic
integration as late as 1994; it would take some time more to get the
benefits of these policies. The AU has not yet (as of 2010) launched
a Free Trade Area (FTA), while other regional organizations have
accelerated the process of economic unity through the creation of
such areas. As observed earlier, due to social and political
problems, the AU could not initiate the process of economic
integration during the 1970s and 1980s. However, since the early
1990s it has taken measures to achieve such integration, as well as
to address socio-political problems of the continent. The results are
yielding slowly. The union itself has become more consolidated as
an organization in recent years, and is taking specific initiatives for
the development of Africa. If this trend continues, the AU would
emerge as a strong regional organization in years to come.

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA)

Origin and Members

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a trilateral

trade agreement among three North American states—the US,
Canada and Mexico. It entered into force on 1 January 1994, after
it was ratified by the parliaments of the three nations in 1992. This
agreement superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade
Agreement, made in 1988. Today, the NAFTA is considered to be
one of the most powerful trade blocs in the world because two of its
members—Canada and the US—are among the strongest
economies of the globe. It controls the entire spectrum of present
North American trade. Since it became operative in 1994, it has
been updated with two major additions, the North American
Agreement for Economic Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North
American Agreement for Labor Cooperation (NAALC). A much
recent addition was the Security and Prosperity Partnership of
North America, designed to foster cooperation on issues of
national security. The NAFTA Secretariat is an independent
agency, responsible for impartial administration of provisions of
dispute settlement in the NAFTA. It has a section each for Canada,
Mexico and the United States, each headed by a national secretary,
and each having an office in the respective national capitals—
Ottawa, Mexico City and Washington DC. The secretariat is
accountable to the NAFTA Free Trade Commission, which
comprises ministers responsible for international trade in the three
NAFTA partner-states.

Objectives

The objectives of the NAFTA have been elaborated in Article 102 of

the agreement. The article states:

The objectives of this Agreement, as elaborated

more specifically through its principles and rules,
including national treatment, most-favoured-nation
treatment, and transparency, are to: (a) eliminate
barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border
movement of goods and services between the
territories of the Parties; (b) promote conditions of
fair competition in the free trade area; (c) increase
substantially investment opportunities in the
territories of the Parties; (d) provide adequate and
effective protection and enforcement of intellectual
property rights in each Party’s territory; (e) create
effective procedures for the implementation and
application of this Agreement, for its joint
administration and for the resolution of disputes;
and (f) establish a framework for further trilateral,
 regional and multilateral cooperation to expand and
enhance the benefits of this Agreement.
It was decided at the time of its formation that the NAFTA would
gradually phase out all tariff reductions by the year 2008. This has
been done successfully. The removal of tariff barriers had boosted
trade in North America, as earlier Mexico used to avoid American
and Canadian goods because of higher tariff rates. Intra-regional
trade has now increased significantly.

The NAFTA and Regional Trade

Trade relations among Canada, Mexico and the United States have
broadened substantially since the implementation of the NAFTA.
According to data released by the US Trade Representative
(USTR), the overall value of intra-North American trade has more
than tripled since then. The USTR adds that regional business
investment in the United States rose by 117 per cent between 1993
and 2007, as compared to a 45 per cent rise in the fourteen years
prior to the implementation of the NAFTA. Trade with NAFTA-
partners now accounts for more than 80 per cent of Canadian and
Mexican trade, and more than a third of US trade. In a report
entitled ‘Top US Export Markets: Free Trade Areas and Country
Fact Sheets’ released in the summer of 2008, the US Department
of Commerce noted that ‘overall trade in goods among the US, the
Canada and Mexico has grown from $297 billion in 1993 to $930
billion in 2007, an increase of 213 per cent’. Citing the positive
impact of the agreement on regional trade, the report also noted
that export of US goods to Canada and Mexico grew from US $142
billion in 1993 to $385.4 billion in 2007, an increase of 171 per
cent. Similarly, import of goods from Canada and Mexico into the
US grew from $151 billion in 1993 to $523.9 billion in 2007, an
increase of 247 per cent.

Member-states have largely benefited from the NAFTA. Since

1994, Mexico’s GDP has increased at an average annual rate of 2.7
per cent, which is lower than those of the US (3.3 per cent) and
Canada (3.6 per cent). Since the implementation of the agreement,
Mexican exports to the United States have quadrupled from $60
billion to $280 billion per year. US exports to Mexico have also
increased sharply—more than triple—as Mexico’s economy has
grown. According to a report published by the US-based Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR), entitled ‘NAFTA’s Economic Impact’,
trade liberalization between Mexico and the US has not only
brought about a great change in Mexican business, it has directly
benefited the Mexican people. For instance, the CFR thinks that
the deal has led to a dramatic reduction in prices for Mexican
consumers; it refers to GEA, a Mexico City-based economic
consulting firm, which estimates that the cost of basic household
goods in Mexico has halved since the implementation of the
agreement.

Like the US and Mexico, Canada—leading exporter of goods to the

US—too has experienced economic growth since implementation
of the NAFTA. In fact, since 1994, its GDP has grown at a rate
faster than those of the other two. Between 1994 and 2003,
Canada’s economy showed an average annual growth rate of 3.6
per cent, compared to 3.3 per cent in the United States and 2.7 per
cent in Mexico. Canadian employment levels have also shown
steady gains in recent years, with overall employment rising from
14.9 million to 15.7 million in the early 2000s (data obtained from
the CFR report). The NAFTA has thus strengthened regional trade
and helped the member-states to develop their economies further.

Controversies Over the Agreement

There emanated controversies from all member-states over the

actual success of the NAFTA. Canada protested over several
provisions in the text of the agreement. It found chapters 11, 19 and
20 controversial and called for amendments in them. Chapter
11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the
United States for compensation if any action taken by those
governments adversely affect their investments. Chapter 19
subjects crucial NAFTA-issues (such as antidumping and
countervailing duty (AD/CVD) determinations) to bi-national
panel review instead of the conventional judicial review practised
in other free trade areas. Chapter 20 provides a procedure for
inter-state resolution of disputes over the application and the
interpretation of the NAFTA.

Further, the CFR report cites several scholars who argue that the
deal has not proved beneficial for Mexico. According to the report,
these scholars believe that economic growth has been poor in
Mexico, averaging less than 3.5 per cent per year or less than 2 per
cent on a per capita basis since 2000. Today unemployment rate is
higher than what it was when the treaty was signed; and half of the
country’s labour force sustains a living in invented jobs in the
informal economy, a figure 10 per cent higher than in the pre-
NAFTA years. Some critics single out Mexico’s farm industry,
saying the agreement has crippled Mexican farming prospects by
opening competition to the heavily-subsidized US farm industry.
Although such criticisms are contradicted by supporters of the
NAFTA, they nevertheless point towards the weak areas of this
trilateral agreement. In the run-up to the American presidential
elections in 2008, Democratic Party nominees Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton also sought revisions in the NAFTA to make it more
time-friendly and progressive.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAFTA

The NAFTA is the largest trading bloc in the world in terms of

combined purchasing power parity (PPP), GDP of its members,
and the second largest by nominal GDP comparison. It is a unique
trilateral agreement where two of the world’s most developed
economies joined hands with a third world economy (Mexico) for
boosting regional trade and business. Unlike the EU, the ASEAN or
the AU, the NAFTA is primarily an economic bloc, which was
formed with economic objectives. At its inception in 1994, it had
set target to gradually phase out tariff barriers in trade latest by
2008. The target was achieved. This shows the commitment of
member-states towards the agreement.

As noted earlier, the NAFTA has significantly benefited regional

trade and helped member-states to develop their economies. Many
had believed that Mexico, a relatively weak economy in the
organization, would benefit the most from agreement. As data
given earlier reveals, the NAFTA proved immensely beneficial not
only for Mexico, but for Canada and the US as well. However, it is
true that the agreement could not realize all its expectations, and
there are reservations about its contribution towards the economic
development of member-states, especially Mexico. Criticisms
notwithstanding, the NAFTA has consolidated remarkably well as
an organization in the last fifteen years, and has become one of the
 strongest trading blocs in the world. It achieved its most important
goal of removing all tariff barriers by 2008; and this would
hopefully help it make better progress in the future. The years
ahead are of crucial importance—the actual power of this
organization could be assessed better now when there are no tariff
barriers. If the NAFTA sustains its commendable growth rate in
the future, it might be potential enough to emerge as the strongest
trade bloc in the world.

QUESTIONS

1. Make a critical estimate of the SAARC as a regional organization.

2. Write a note on the SAFTA.
3. Describe the composition and functions of the ASEAN.
4. Analyse the significance of the European Union as a regional organization.
5. Examine the role of the African Union as a regional organization.
6. Give a brief account of the NAFTA.

10
International Political Economy

Political Economy is not too new a branch of study in social

science. It developed with the spread of capitalism in Europe, as
also with the progress of academic discourses on capitalism,
spearheaded by scholars like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl
Marx, Friedrich Engels, Max Weber and others. It attempts to
analyse the impact of economic activities on politics and statecraft,
and how economy and politics interact with one another. Likewise,
International Political Economy (IPE) is the study of international
relations on the basis of economic activities taking place around
the world and their analyses. With the onset of globalization from
the mid-1980s, a renewed interest in IPE has developed among
scholars. Along with political perspectives and issues of security,
the study of international relations today involves economic
analyses. The continuing significance of trade and commerce in
international relations; the increasing impact of economic
institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Free Trade
Agreements (FTA); and the growing importance of multinational
corporations (MNCs) in world politics, have been instrumental in
the revival of interest in IPE in recent times. Now IPE constitutes
one of the most significant areas in the study of international
relations.

IPE itself is much vast in scope. It includes several issues like

international trade regime, international monetary regime and
international investment regime, with emphasis on economic
institutions, organizations and activities; FTA among nation states;
economic development and disparity in different countries;
globalization; the North-South divide; and the future of capitalism
and socialism. Almost all of these issues generated academic
debates and gave birth to a host of theories in IPE. Of the different
issues of IPE, this chapter proposes to analyse the global economic
order after the Second World War; the international economic
order as it exists today; and future economic trends of the world.
The discussion begins with the international economic order after
the Second World War that had largely contributed towards the
development of the present global economic order.

FROM BRETTON WOODS TO THE WTO

When the Second World War was nearing its end, with the defeat
of the Axis powers in sight, leaders of the winning combination
started discussions on the post-Second World War global politics
and economy. In July 1944, 730 delegates from forty-four allied
nations met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire (USA) at the
United Nations Monetary and Fiscal Conference to discuss and
plan the world economic regime after the war. At the concluding
stages of the conference, the delegates signed the ‘Bretton Woods
Agreement’ to monitor the international economic system after the
war. With a view to regulate the international monetary system,
the delegates at Bretton Woods established the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which are part of the
World Bank Group today. These organizations started to function
in 1945 after the agreement was ratified by the participating
countries. A major feature of the Bretton Woods Agreement was
the necessity for each country to adopt a fiscal policy that would
maintain the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value. In
other words, the main purpose of this agreement was to prevent
currency disorders and to stabilize exchange rates through a
regulated economic system. The IMF was created to bridge
temporary imbalances of payments. Thus, for the international
economy, leaders at Bretton Woods favoured a system of regulated
market with tight controls on the value of currencies. Although
there were disagreements on the methods of implementation of
this regulated system, all agreed on the necessity for tight controls,
given the experience of the Great (economic) Depression of the
1930s and the setback to European economy during the Second
World War.

The theoretical position behind the Bretton Woods Agreement was

strengthened by the Keynesian economic model, named after
noted American Economist John Maynard Keynes, who favoured a
controlled market economy with state intervention. Free trade with
reduced tariff rates and liberal market economy were favoured by
the Keynesian school of economists, but the state would not be
invisible in these economic activities. In the international
economic system, a high degree of cooperation among states was
emphasized by the agreement; but to control this cooperation,
institutions like the IMF and the IBRD would act as watchdogs.
The global economic crises in the period between the first and the
second world wars were attributed to a lack of cooperation among
nation-states, as also the absence of any effective regulatory
authority to monitor the global economic order. The agreement
wanted to overcome these deficiencies of the inter-war period by
establishing such cooperatives and monitoring agencies. Through
such endeavours, it actually founded the modern international
economic system that still thrives on cooperation among nation-
states, although private economic actors play a significant role in
today’s international political economy.

In the lines of the Bretton Woods system that aimed to establish

international trade, monetary, and investment regimes, a new
mechanism known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) was created in 1947. The GATT was a part of the
international trade regime while the IMF and the IBRD were parts
of international monetary and investment regimes respectively.
Earlier, plans to launch an International Trade Organization (ITO)
had failed in 1946. Although mooted in 1947, the GATT finally
became operational on 1 January 1948 when twenty-three
countries signed the agreement. These countries were: Australia,
Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba,
Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia,
Syria, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It
should be remembered in this context that the GATT was not an
organization, it was a treaty. Its main objective was to reduce
barriers in international trade. This was achieved through the
reduction of tariff barriers, and through quantitative restrictions
and subsidies on trade by executing a series of agreements. From
its first round of talks in Annecy in 1949—excluding the 1947 round
in Geneva that established the agreement—to its concluding round
in Uruguay in 1993 (started in 1986), the GATT achieved around
45 per cent tariff reductions on several items in world trade. In
terms of monetary value, around US $1,200 billion worth of tariff
concessions were achieved by the agreement by 1993. Starting with
twenty-three members-states in 1948, 123 members participated in
the Uruguay round of negotiations. Besides tariff reduction, the
GATT also negotiated on issues like non-tariff measures, rules,
services, intellectual property, dispute settlement, textiles,
agriculture, labour standards, environment, competition,
investment, transparency, and patents.

The Uruguay round of GATT negotiations decided to establish the

World Trade Organization (WTO) that would replace the GATT as
the main body to monitor international trade regime. The WTO
became operational in 1995 after the Marrakesh Agreement was
signed. Since its inception in 1993, it has been acting as an
important body to monitor and control international economic
activities. The 153 member-states of organization represent 90 per
cent of world trade. The details of WTO-membership, its purposes,
organizational structure, and impact on world economy and
politics are analysed follow.

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Objectives and Membership

The World Trade Organization is primarily an organization for the

liberalization of international trade. It is also a forum for
governments to negotiate trade agreements. Those member-states
which face trade barriers and want them removed or lowered can
negotiate at the WTO. Such negotiations may help to liberalize
trade. But the organization is not all about liberalizing trade; in
some cases its rules may support maintaining trade barriers in
order to protect consumers’ rights or to prevent the spread of
diseases. The WTO set of rules mostly covers agreements,
negotiated and signed by the member-states. These documents
provide the legal ground rules for international trade and
commerce. They are actually contracts, binding governments to
keep their trade policies within agreed limits. Although contracted
by member-governments, the WTO does not confine itself to
governmental trade only; it also seeks to help private producers of
goods and services, exporters and importers to conduct their
business. At the same time, it encourages governments to meet
their social and environmental commitments. A major purpose of
the WTO, according to its official web site (http//www.wto.org) is
as follows:

To help trade flow as freely as possible … so long as

there are no undesirable side-effects … because this
is important for economic development and well-
being. That partly means removing obstacles. It also
means ensuring that individuals, companies and
governments know what the trade rules are around
the world, and giving them the confidence that
there will be no sudden changes of policy. In other
words, the rules have to be ‘transparent’ and
predictable.
Moreover, resolving conflicting interests among trading nations is
another important objective of the WTO. The dispute settlement
mechanism, according to its agreements, includes some neutral
procedures based on an agreed legal foundation. As per the official
web site, ‘WTO members have agreed that if they believe fellow-
members are violating trade rules, they will use the multilateral
system of settling disputes instead of taking action unilaterally.
That means abiding by the agreed procedures and respecting
judgments.’ Unlike the GATT, the WTO now has an elaborate
mechanism and a definite time frame to settle disputes. The
Dispute Settlement Body of the organization is responsible for
resolving differences among trading parties.
The WTO currently has 153 members. The 123 states that attended
the Uruguay round of the GATT became its founder-members in
1995. Thirty more nations joined subsequently. Box 10.1 lists the
current members of the WTO.

Box 10.1: Current Members of the WTO

Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia,

Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte
d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, European
Communities, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea
Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong (China), Hungary,
Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Jordan, Kenya, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic,
Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macao
(China), Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives,
Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia,
Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland,
Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia,
St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands,
South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Surinam, Swaziland, Sweden,
Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United
Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela,
Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe

All the members have joined the WTO as a result of negotiation.

Membership in this organization, as stated in the official web site
of the WTO, means:
 … a balance of rights and obligations. They enjoy
the privileges that other member-countries give to
them and the security that the trading rules
provide. In return, they had to make commitments
to open their markets and to abide by the rules—
those commitments were the result of the
membership (or “accession”) negotiations.
Membership in the WTO is gained through a long accession
process that involves several rounds of negotiation between the
aspiring member and other existing members and WTO bodies.
For legal reasons, the European Union (EU) is officially known as
the European Communities in the business of the WTO. The EU is
a WTO-member in its own right, as are each of the other twenty-
seven member-states. This makes twenty-eight members in the
organization. Apart from the 153 regular members, the WTO has
thirty ‘observers’. They are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belarus, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Holy See (Vatican), Iran,
Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lao Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic,
Liberia, Libya, Montenegro, Russian Federation, Samoa, Sao Tome
and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
Vanuatu, and Yemen. As per WTO rules, all observers, with the
exception of Holy See, must start accession negotiations (for full
membership) within five years of becoming observers.

Organizational Structure and Voting

The WTO has a very elaborate organizational structure. At the top

remains the Ministerial Conference (MC), that acts as the highest
decision-making body of the organization. It is composed of
representatives (ministers) of all the members of the WTO and
meets at least once every two years. Since the establishment of the
organization in 1995, seven MCs have been held so far, the first
being in Singapore in 1996. The first conference provided an
opportunity to members to plan and declare the major initiatives
of the organization. It addressed, among other issues, the
continuation of negotiations for a higher level of liberalization in
the services sector. It also adopted the Comprehensive and
Integrated WTO Plan of Action for least-developed countries. At
the end of the conference, the ministers adopted the Singapore
Ministerial Declaration. It reaffirmed WTO-members’ support of
the multilateral trading system and set out the WTO work
programme for the next few years. The second conference was held
in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1998, and the third in Seattle, USA, in
1999. The fourth conference in Doha, Qatar, in 2001 needs special
mention because the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) or the
Doha Round was launched here. It also included China as the
143rd member of the WTO. The DDA wanted to make globalization
more inclusive and help the world’s poor, particularly by slashing
barriers and subsidies in farming. It comprised boosting trade
liberalization as well as making of new rules, with commitments to
strengthen substantial assistance to developing countries. The fifth
ministerial conference was organized in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003.
It aimed at reaching agreements on the DDA. But the North-South
divide over economic issues became pronounced in this conference
with G-20 countries (led by China and India) from the South
resisting moves by the Northern countries (led by the US and
Britain) to impose trade terms as per their design. As a result,
negotiations at this conference reached a deadlock. The sixth MC
took place in Hong Kong, China, in 2005. Here members agreed to
phase out all their agricultural export subsidies by the end of 2013,
and terminate any cotton export subsidies by the end of 2006. This
conference accorded a few concessions to developing countries that
included an agreement to introduce duty-free, tariff-free access for
goods from the least-developed countries. Several other important
issues were left for further negotiation to be completed by the end
of 2010.

The General Council comes next in the organizational hierarchy. In

effect, it is the real executive head of the WTO, meeting regularly to
carry out the functions of the organization. The council has
representatives (usually ambassadors or their equivalent) from all
member-states and has the authority to act on behalf of the MC. It
has its office at the headquarters of the WTO in Geneva. The
council has several committees, working groups and working
parties under its control. Some important committees are: (1)
Committee on Trade and Environment; (2) Committee on Trade
and Development (with Subcommittee on Least-Developed
Countries); (3) Committee on Regional Trade Agreements; (4)
Committee on Balance of Payments Restrictions; and (5)
Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration. The names of
the committees are suggestive of their functions and programmes.
The council also has Working Parties on ‘accession’ of new
members to the organization. Further, it has Working Groups on
these: (1) trade, debt and finance; and (2) trade and technology
transfer. Under the broader umbrella of the General Council, three
different councils exist. These are: (1) Council for Trade in Goods
(CTG); (2) Council for Trade-related aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (CTIPR); and (3) Council for Trade in Services
(CTS).

The CTG has committees in the following areas under its

jurisdiction: (1) market access; (2) agriculture; (3) sanitary and
phytosanitary measures; (4) technical barriers to trade; (5)
subsidies and countervailing measures; (6) anti-dumping
practices; (7) customs valuation; (8) rules of origin; (9) import
licensing; (10) trade-related investment measures; and (11)
safeguards. It also has a working party on state-trading
enterprises. The CTIPR has no committees, working parties or
working groups attached to it. The CTS has committees on trade in
financial services, and specific commitments. It also has working
parties on domestic regulation, and GATS rules.

The General Council also meets as the Trade Policy Review Body
and the Dispute Settlement Body. The negotiations under the Doha
Development Agenda take place in the Trade Negotiations
Committee (TNC) and its subsidiaries. This includes negotiations
on agriculture and services that began in early 2000. The TNC also
operates under the authority of the council. Each year, new
chairpersons for the major WTO-bodies are approved by the
council. The General Council has thus been entrusted with myriad
tasks and given enormous powers to effectively manage and
control the activities of the WTO.

Each member-state in the WTO has one vote, but voting has never
taken place in the organization. Decisions are generally made by
consensus in order to find the most widely acceptable decision.
However, it requires a long time and several rounds of negotiation
to reach general consensus. Sometimes, it becomes difficult to
arrive at a consensus, and negotiations fail. But since trade-related
issues are linked to national interests, the WTO has relied on
consensus decision-making. However, in reality, negotiations at
the WTO are conducted through a process of informal negotiations
between small groups of states. Such negotiations are widely
known as ‘Green Room’ negotiations (named after the colour of the
WTO Director-General’s office in Geneva), or ‘Mini-Ministerials,’
when they take place outside the organization.

Main Functions of the WTO

Among many functions of the WTO, the following are important:

(1) assisting and developing transitional economies; (2) providing
specialized help for export promotion; (3) extending cooperation in
global economic policy-making; (4) monitoring implementation of
the agreements covered; and (5) maintaining the basic principles
of international trade. An analysis of these functions would
highlight the major activities of the WTO today. A discussion on
these functions follows.
Assisting and Developing Transitional Economies

About 75 per cent of the total WTO-membership belongs to

developing states. Developing states like China, Brazil, India,
Mexico, Indonesia and others play an increasingly significant role
in the organization. The WTO pays due attention to the special
needs and problems of developing and transitional economies.
Such assistance may cover anything from providing help in dealing
with negotiations to joining the WTO and fulfilling its
commitments to providing guidance as to how to participate
effectively in multilateral negotiations through training and
workshops. Developing states, and particularly the least-developed
among them, are furnished with trade and tariff data relating to
their individual export interests and to their participation in WTO-
bodies. New members with transitional economies immensely
benefit from these services.
Providing Specialized Help for Export Promotion

The WTO offers specialized help for export promotion to its

members through the International Trade Centre that was
established by the GATT in 1964. Now, it is jointly operated by the
WTO and the United Nations, the latter operating through the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The centre
receives requests from member-states, especially developing
states, for assistance in formulating and implementing export
promotion programmes as well as import operations and
techniques. It is actively engaged in taking actions after receiving
requests from the members. The centre provides information and
advice on export markets and marketing techniques. It also assists
in establishing export promotion and marketing services, and in
training personnel required for these services. The centre’s help is
freely available to the least-developed states. The WTO’s
commitment to upliftment of the world economy is effectively
fulfilled through this function.
Extending Cooperation in Global Economic Policy-making

A major aspect of the WTO’s mandate is to cooperate with the IMF,

the World Bank and other multilateral institutions to achieve
greater coherence in global economic policy-making. At the
Marrakesh Ministerial Meeting in April 1994, a separate
Ministerial Declaration was adopted to fulfill this objective. The
declaration recognizes the link between different aspects of
economic policy, and the responsibility of the WTO to maintain
and improve cooperation with international organizations like the
IMF and World Bank involved in monetary and financial matters.
It also took account of the impact of trade liberalization on the
growth and development of national economies. It says that this is
an increasingly important component in the success of the
economic adjustment programmes which many WTO members are
undertaking in an era of globalization.
Monitoring Implementation of the Agreements Covered

The WTO oversees about sixty different agreements which have the
status of international legal documents. Member-governments
must sign and ratify all WTO agreements on accession. Some of the
important agreements that the organization monitors are
discussed here. (1) General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS): The GATS was created to extend the multilateral trading
system to the service sector, in the same way as the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provided such a system
for merchandise trade. The agreement entered into force in
January 1995. (2) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA): The AoA came
into effect with the establishment of the WTO at the beginning of
1995. It has three central concepts or ‘pillars’: domestic support,
market access, and export subsidies. (3) Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS): The agreement
on TRIPS sets down minimum standards for many forms of
intellectual property (IP) regulation. It was negotiated at the end of
the Uruguay Round of the GATT) in 1994. (4) Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT): The TBT Agreement is an
international treaty of the WTO. It was negotiated during the
Uruguay Round of the GATT, and entered into force with the
establishment of the WTO in 1995. The treaty ensures that
‘technical negotiations and standards, as well as testing and
certification procedures, do not create unnecessary obstacles to
trade’. (5) Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Agreement: The SPS
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures was also negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the
GATT and entered into force with the establishment of the WTO in
1995. Under this agreement, the organization sets constraints on
members’ policies relating to food safety (bacterial contaminants,
pesticides, inspection and labelling) as well as animal and plant
health (imported pests and diseases). Through monitoring and
implementation of the agreements covered, the WTO tries to
maintain a practice of fair trade across the world.
Maintaining the Basic Principles of International Trade

The WTO is committed to maintain certain basic principles in the

conduct of international trade. They are: transparency; reciprocity;
respect to commitments, non-discrimination among member-
states; and safety measures. The principle of transparency requires
member-states to publish their trade regulations, to respond to
requests for information by other members, and to notify changes
in trade policies to the WTO. The principle of reciprocity prevents
members from taking unilateral trade-liberalizing policies. It
reflects the commitment of the WTO to secure multilateral trade
negotiations for equal access to foreign markets and trade gains.
Respect to commitments is the principle that requires a member-
state to fulfill its tariff commitments with regard to other members
or partners. The Ceiling Bindings, enumerated in the Schedule of
Concessions of tariffs must be respected by member-states of the
WTO. The principle of nondiscrimination followed by the WTO has
two major components: the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rule,
and the National Treatment Policy (NTP). The MFN rule requires
that a WTO-member grants the most favourable conditions for
trade in a certain product type to all other WTO-members. In other
words, a WTO-member must provide the same conditions on all
trade to other WTO-members. The NTP refers to equal treatment
of imported and locally-produced goods to tackle non-tariff
barriers to trade. Finally, the principle of safety measures allows
member-governments to restrict trade under specific
circumstances to prevent malpractices and discrimination.

The WTO also acts as a Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The

General Council of the organization has been entrusted with these
two important tasks. Dispute settlement is considered as one of the
significant contributions of the WTO in a multilateral international
trading system; the organization thus has an elaborate dispute
settlement mechanism. All WTO-members have agreed to use the
multilateral system of settling disputes instead of taking action
unilaterally. The dispute settlement process of the organization
involves the panels of the DSB, the WTO Secretariat, the Appellate
Body, arbitrators, independent experts, and many specialized
institutions. The WTO is currently engaged in the Doha Round of
trade negotiations launched in 2001. Issues like tariffs, non-tariff
measures, agriculture, labour standards, environment,
competition, investment, transparency, and patents come under
the purview of this round. Discontent prevails among member-
states over issues under negotiation in the Doha Round here. In
accordance with its principles, the WTO is trying to follow the
policy of non-discrimination in the Doha Round.

WTO: An Appraisal

Since its establishment in 1995, the WTO has generated a lot of

controversy over its trade-liberalizing policies and the methods of
implementing these policies. Whether free trade is an answer to
economic backwardness is a much-debated issue. The economies
of several modern industrialized states were developed in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, although with trade
barriers. The US and Western European states are examples in this
regard. After satisfactory and sufficient levels of economic
development, these states have opted for free and liberal trade.
Whether a newly independent state with immature political and
economic infrastructure can afford trade without restrictions
remains a controversial theoretical issue today. Leaving aside
newly independent states, whether all developing economies can
follow liberal trade policies with unrestricted exposure to
international markets also remains doubtful. These controversies
lead to a schism about the very concept of the WTO. People
interested in the affairs of the WTO can broadly be categorized into
two groups: ‘defenders’ and ‘opponents’ of the WTO. It appears
that neither group is happy about the organization. The defenders,
normally supporters of liberal trade, comprise the rich
industrialized states. They are wary of the WTO because of its ‘level
playing field’ policies that are reflected through principles like the
Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and the National Treatment Policy
(NTP). The opponents, usually the developing states, complain
about discriminatory policies of the WTO that, they allege, favour
the rich countries. They cite the example of unequal negotiations in
the WTO, where bargaining depends on the strength of the
economy and the size of the market. This kind of negotiation
harms the interest of smaller developing economies. All these
controversies had paralysed negotiations of the organization in the
recent past. The Seattle Ministerial Conference in 1999 eventually
failed, while the Cancun Ministerial Conference in 2003 witnessed
severe animosity between the rich North and the poor South over
trade-related issues.

The WTO’s policies related to environment, labour, and intellectual

property rights (IPR) have also drawn criticism from different
corners. Over environmental issues, the North-South divide is
clearly pronounced. The industrialized North alleges that
environmental safeguards are not properly maintained in third
world industrial zones, while the Southern states complain that
‘greenhouse effect’ is at its maximum in developed states because
polluting emissions are very high in industrialized states. The
WTO-negotiations on environment did not prove to be effective in
settling such disputes. Labour unions condemn the WTO for
lacking in protection of labour rights. With the spread of
globalization and free trade, labour rights require stringent
protection. But the WTO has not been very successful in this area,
allege different labour unions around the world. The IPR has also
become a significant, though controversial, issue in the
organization. The TRIPS Agreement, that sets down minimum
standards for many forms of intellectual property regulations, was
considered unnecessary in international trade by several
economists. Non-trade agenda like the TRIPS may dilute real trade
issues in the WTO. Further, member-states are not much satisfied
with TRIPS-regulations. The French have been alleging that free
trade in films would actually destroy French cinema, which the
French perceive as a cultural icon. The TRIPS may not be enough
to prevent such cultural intrusions.

It appears, therefore, that the WTO has become the perennial

‘whipping boy’ in the discussions of international political
economy. However, it has many ‘successes’. The Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) has earned accolades for settling more than
a hundred disputes in its short period of existence. Member-states
see in this body a fair and impartial mechanism whose rulings are
enforceable and acceptable. Developing states are now frequently
using this forum against the might of powerful economies, because
the DSB, on several occasions, had upheld their pleas against
strong economies. The DSB has thus earned the confidence of
member-states, both rich and poor. Further, the WTO has
successfully concluded negotiations on liberalizing international
markets in financial services, maritime services, and
telecommunications, with global accord. The liberalization process
was due to be completed in the Uruguay Round, but was deferred
for later negotiations. This has enhanced the credibility of the
organization as a body for liberalizing trade.

An international trade regime is necessary in the age of

globalization. But how this trade regime would represent itself and
operate are important issues. In the early years of its existence, the
WTO showed less maturity and tactlessness in handling trade-
related issues, and presented itself as the extended arm of
American trade interests. As a result, it could not initially generate
much enthusiasm among developing states. The Seattle and the
Cancun demonstrations against its policies were reflective of this
trend. But now more and more developing states are willing to join
the organization. This is not only because isolation is impossible in
global trade, but also due to the increasing acceptability of the
WTO as a mature custodian of the present world trade regime.
Whatever be the general merits of free trade, the organization must
view it with an open-minded approach, sans big-power influence.
The developing states must also learn to adapt themselves to the
concept and the practice of free trade that seems irreplaceable in
the near future. They must not always raise their accusing finger
towards stronger economies. The WTO is gradually earning their
respect because it has handled many of their problems in a
matured way, without big-power influence. This is important for
its future because developing states make 75 per cent of its
membership.

ECONOMIC ORDER OF THE PRESENT WORLD

It is not easy to describe the present world economic order in a few

words. This order is characterized by different factors like the
existence of different types of national economies with different
levels of economic development; international trade, monetary and
investment regimes, as well as institutions and activities associated
with them; tendency towards economic integration, regional and
international; non-state economic activities spearheaded by the
MNCs; free trade; and globalization. Some of these issues—for
instance, international trade regime with a focus on the WTO—
have been discussed earlier in this chapter; while some others—for
instance, trade and regional economic integration (like the EU,
ASEAN or NAFTA); international political and economic
integration (the UNO or WTO); globalization; and theories
concerning IPE (like liberalism, pluralism, Marxist theory, world
systems theory)—have been taken up in other chapters. In this
section, the remaining issues of importance in IPE today, like
divergent national economies with high level of income disparity,
the role of MNC in the present economic scenario, and the North-
South divide, would be highlighted.

The Divergent Economic Order

Today’s world is characterized by a high level of income disparity

among states, and also by different levels of economic
development. After the Second World War, different levels of
economic development achieved by nation-states have led to a
hypothetical division of the world into ‘highly developed’,
‘developed’ and ‘developing’ states. These categories are also
loosely referred to as the ‘first world’, the ‘second world’ and the
‘third world’ respectively. The most-industrialized nations,
generally known as the G-8 countries, and some others are the
highly developed world today. The developed world comprises
mostly the former East European bloc states and some others;
while the remaining majority is termed as the developing third
world. The development of a country is measured in terms of socio-
economic indicators like rate of literacy, life expectancy, gross
national income, and gross domestic product. A country’s level of
development or economic growth is important in international
politics because it may determine a country’s stature and
performance in international politics. It has been observed in
international politics since the Second World War that nations
with developed or growing economies have played the role of
major actors. Levels of economic development thus assume
increasing significance in international relations today.

The divergence in today’s world economic order can be assessed by

Gross National Income (GNI) per capita. The World Bank has
divided countries into ‘high income’, ‘upper-middle income’,
‘lower-middle income’ and ‘low income’ categories based on GNI
per capita as in 2007. Table 10.1 shows income disparity among
nations in today’s world.

Table 10.1: Income Disparity Among Nations in the Present

World
Source: World Development Report, 2009; from the official web
site of the World Bank:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2009/Resources/42
31006-1225840759068/WDR09_22_SWDIWeb.pdf/. Retrieved
on 28 May 2009.

It is beyond doubt that many high-income countries in the first

column of Table 10.1 are important actors in international politics
today as they are in a position to control the events and outcome of
world politics. Conversely, the low-income states in the fourth
column have limited or negligible impact in international politics
today. Upper-middle-income countries like Russia, Brazil,
Argentina and lower-middle-income states like China, India or
Egypt are important state actors in world politics today because
they are all growing economies with impressive levels of GDP
growth rate. The high-income states make up the ‘highly
developed’ category with high literacy and life expectancy rates, the
‘upper-middle income states make the ‘developed’ category with
moderately high literacy rate and life expectancy, and the next two
are the ‘developing’ categories with moderate or low literacy-rate
and life expectancy. Although there may not be any direct
correlation between the GNI of a state and its impact in
international politics, it can never be denied that, due to their
economic clout, the ‘high- and upper-middle-income states enjoy
advantageous position in world politics today.

The Role of MNCs

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are very large organizations

spanning across several countries. Normally a MNC has a
particular country of origin, but it spreads its business worldwide,
with rapid circulation of goods and capital. Although there is no
fixed definition of MNCs, they share some similar chracteristics.
They operate simultaneously in many countries, with fixed offices,
facilities and employees in each of them. They operate within the
parameters of the rule of law in each country. MNCs have assumed
greater significance in international politics today because they
have immense economic strength and exert profound political
influence on the basis of their economic prowess. Before analysing
the role of such a corporation in international politics today, it is
important to know different types of MNCs operating in the
present world. They can be broadly classified into three types:
industrial corporations, financial corporations, and corporations
providing services. Industrial corporations produce their own
goods in factories located all over the world, and sell them to
various other industries and consumers locally as well as globally.
They are giant corporations in terms of their revenue and areas of
operation. Most of them are in the automobile, electronics,
infrastructure, and oil and gas sectors. They belong to the highly
developed industrialized states like the former G-7 countries.
MNCs like General Motors, General Electric, Mitsubishi, Suzuki,
Toyota, Sony, LG, British Petroleum, Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil
fall into this category.

Financial corporations are involved in financial business like

banks, stock broking, asset management, portfolio management,
and mutual funds. Like industrial corporations, they also operate
across boundaries. Financial giants like the HSBC (Hong Kong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation), Standard Chartered, American
Express Bank, Citi Bank, Deutsch Bank, JP Morgan, and Merrill
Lynch maintain transnational operations. Nowadays almost all
financial corporations are engaged in multifarious financial
activities like banking, portfolio management, stock broking, and
asset management, although they are subject to more stringent
(domestic) legal restrictions than the industrial or ‘service
corporations’. With monetary transactions at the rate of $2.0
trillion per day around the globe, financial corporations are
becoming increasingly important in today’s international political
economy.

Several MNCs sell services to the people across the world. These
service corporations exist, among others, in travel and tourism
(mostly airlines), fast food, hotel, media, and retail grocery sectors.
Airlines like British Airways, Air France, Air Canada, and Emirates
maintain offices and staff in several countries across the globe to
sell their services to people and reap profit from such services. Fast
food chains like McDonald’s and Kentucky and soft drinks giants
like Pepsi and Coca Cola operate all over the world and earn huge
sums of money through such operations. Hoteliers like Hyatt,
Marriott, and the Taj Groups have business interests in several
countries. Media houses like the CNN and the BBC also reach out
to people in different corners of the globe. Retail grocery chains
like AM-PM, Lawson, Safeway supermarkets are also big MNCs
operating in different countries. However, it is to be noted here
that service corporations are smaller than industrial and financial
corporations in terms of revenue and area of operation. But they
are growing at a rapid pace and may soon catch up with other
multinational corporations.

The role of the MNCs in international relations and IPE is highly

controversial. Many analysts see them as ‘agents’ of their countries
of origin (home country) and their governments. According to this
view, the MNCs clearly have the political agenda of perpetuating
the interests of its home country in other parts of the world. Thus,
for example, General Motors is seen not as a purely business
organization, but one that also tries to serve US national interests.
A more radical view considers a national government as an ‘agent’
of MNCs. According to this view, the national government tries to
protect and upheld the interests of the MNCs no matter how
exploiting and detrimental these interests might be. The national
government sees the MNC as a ‘pride’ for the country and tries to
back it in all its ventures in different parts of the world.

A related view, mainly echoed by the Socialist School, considers the

MNCs as perpetuators of neocolonialism. According to this view,
MNCs help their national governments to dominate a state,
especially a poor one, first through economic measures with the
ultimate aim to subjugate it politically. The economic strength of
the MNC is used by its home state to install or overthrow a political
regime in another state with a view to bring the state under the
home state’s sphere of political influence. It is also believed by this
school that the MNCs fund political groups, even terrorist outfits in
other countries, in order to serve the interests of its home country.
Although there is limited or no specific proof behind such belief,
MNCs are alleged to have interests beyond purely trade and
commerce in different parts of the world.
A contrary view, mainly propagated by the Liberal School of
political thinkers, considers the MNCs as very important non-state
actors in today’s global economy. In this view, they cater to the
needs of the people around the world and they are not bound by
the interests of any particular country. Their only allegiance is
towards their business and not towards any country. They may
have countries of origin, but they pay loyalty only towards their
clients and stakeholders in all parts of the globe. They are
motivated by profits, and not by any political interests. In fact,
according to this view, serving political interests actually harm the
MNCs and they are aware of the detrimental effects of
politicization. So, they resist indulging in politics and concentrate
on their business, because their business interest require a very
stable and peaceful international order. They are truly economic
players and they actually strengthen the world economy through
their commercial activities.

The MNCs are very powerful independent actors in the

international political economy. The annual income of many such
corporations exceeds the national income per annum of several
individual states. Several MNCs have a higher annual income
compared to the annual revenue earned by the UNO, the largest
inter-governmental organization (IGO) in the world. These
comparisons bring to light the economic prowess of the MNCs in
today’s world. In an era of globalization, they have contributed
towards global interdependence through the flow of capital and
services across boundaries, as also through the creation of global
infrastructure of facilities and communication networks. Although
it is true that several MNCs have more economic power than many
states in the world, when compared to strong industrialized states,
their economic might appears to be small. The IPE is still
controlled by economically powerful states, but all such states
today have giant MNCs contributing towards the growth of the
national economies. Therefore, the increasingly significant role of
the MNCs towards the growth of national as well as global
economy can never be underrated in today’s world.

The North-South Divide

The economic order of the present world is characterized by a huge

gap in capital accumulation, technology, and overall standards of
living between the advanced post-industrial countries of the North
and the poor less-developed countries of the South. Although
terms like the ‘North’ and the ‘South’ have a latent geographical
connotation, they are not used in the study of the IPE in a strict
geographical sense. Advanced countries south of the equator, like
Australia and New Zealand, are considered part of the North in the
discourses of IPE. In the terminology of the IPE, North is thus
synonymous to technologically advanced rich post-industrial
countries of the first world, whereas South is associated with the
poor, less-developed countries of the third world. The erstwhile
‘second world’ countries of the East Bloc (during the Cold War
period) have been gradually amalgamating into either the North or
the South on the basis of their economic development. However,
irrespective of conceptual ambiguity over terminology, the fact
remains that the vast majority of the world’s population today live
in abject poverty in the South. More than a billion people in sub-
Saharan Africa, South and Central Asia, Latin America, and
Central America live in extreme poverty without access to basic
needs like food, shelter, water, sanitation, education, and health
care. On the contrary, people in the rich North are affluent with
high levels of income, employment and social security. But why is
this disparity? Scholars of international relations hold different
opinions on the issue of this large gap between the North and the
South. But before analysing the theoretical position on the North-
South divide, a discussion on the problems of the South would be
necessary.

Problems of the South

The countries of the South share some common problems,

although each country has its own ‘peculiar’ problem. The major
problems of the South can be broadly classified into two types—
economic and socio-political. To begin with the economic
problems, most countries of the South could not follow an
indigenous path of economic development due to long colonial
rule. The colonial masters started to do their economic planning
such that they suited only the needs of the colonizers, and not
those of the native people. Consequently, economic activities were
limited within a few areas of the country, as they failed to reach all
parts of the land. After independence, countries of the South were
left with legacies of colonialism, and in most cases the new political
elite, due to lack of experience, followed the economic model thrust
upon the state by the colonizers. Further, after independence—
primarily after the Second World War—the countries of the South
confronted a bipolar world of contrasting political and economic
ideologies represented by the two superpowers—the US and the
Soviet Union. Due to political compulsions, many countries of the
South followed either the capitalist or the socialist economic
models without taking into consideration the socio-cultural
background of the country. In other words, the new political elite
also imposed an economic model for which the country might not
have prepared itself. The result was utter confusion and lack of
proper economic development. In some countries that chose
‘mixed’ economy, the public sector faired poorly due to over-
protectionism and the culture of providing unplanned subsidy by
the state. As a result, economic progress suffered immensely.

The newly independent states of the South carried enormous social

and economic burdens due to oppressive colonial rule. Poverty,
unemployment, population explosion, illiteracy, lack of health care
and housing, and many other problems haunted these new states
from the very beginning. Developmental efforts required a
stupendous amount of money; these new states also did not
possess that. So the ruling elite faced a great dilemma of fixing
priorities for state-building through socio-economic development.
For instance, a drive to remove illiteracy would have affected
industrialization and vice versa. In this manner, economic
development and the state-building process faced many obstacles
in the South.

Industrialization and urbanization were haphazard in the countries

of the South due to lack of funds and proper planning. The
agriculture-based economy in these states mostly required
agrobased industries, which in turn would have benefited vast
rural areas and prevented migration of rural people to a few urban
locations. But in many countries agro-industries were neglected.
The rural people flocked to a few industrial pockets in urban areas
in search of jobs. Such migration created undue pressure on the
urban socio-economic infrastructure and gave birth to slums,
poverty, crime, and demographic and environmental imbalance. A
related problem was uncoordinated development of industry and
agriculture. Due to lack of adequate funds, countries of the South
could not lay coordinated emphasis both on industry and
agriculture. Both these sectors suffered, because when industry
was preferred, agriculture was neglected, and vice versa. Economy
as a whole suffered in the long run.

In many states of the South, after independence, colonial

exploitation continued in other forms. One form of such
exploitation by the rich North was the creation of the ‘debt trap’.
The newly independent countries of the South required huge sums
of money for their socio-economic developmental projects. The
rich countries were too willing to lend this money to the poor
South to ‘help’ them in their state-building activities. Money was
lent at high rates of interest. The states of the South could not but
borrow in order to sustain developmental activities. But many of
them were not in a position to repay even the interests, let alone
the principal amounts. The interests accumulated over years, as
the loan amounts reached astronomic figures. A debt trap was
thereby created, and the borrower had to give all kinds of economic
and political benefits to the lender in its territory. This trap was a
potent method of neocolonization perpetuated by the rich North
over the poor South. Neocolonization is disguised exploitation in
the name of providing help to poor countries for their socio-
economic development. This mechanism of the debt trap was very
much prevalent in international political economy since the
Second World War, and remained effective till the mid-1990s.

Socio-political problems in the South are not isolated phenomena;

they are linked to economic problems and vice-versa. For instance,
political instability in less-developed countries has created
obstacles for economic development. Frequent changes of
government, political clashes between rival groups, civil war in
some states, military or civilian dictatorship in some others—all
these have created conditions of social unrest not favourable for
economic progress. Steady economic development requires
political stability, which remained a distant dream in many
countries of the South.

The colonial rulers paid little attention to the creation of a coherent

and peaceful society through the development of social sectors like
education, health, housing, and sanitation. On the contrary, the
colonizers encouraged social divisions in the South to perpetuate
their rule. Ethnic, religious, linguistic, and caste differences among
people were shrewdly exploited by the colonizers to segregate
communities from one another, with a view to prolong their rule.
They instigated one community against another so that lack of
developmental work in the social sectors could be ignored by the
people. The fragmented society created by the colonizers continued
to exist after independence, and posed a severe hindrance to
economic development and political governance in many states of
the South. The colonizers did not create general facilities related to
education, food, health care and housing for all. Countries of the
South remained poverty-stricken and illiterate without access to
the basic needs of life. Long periods of colonial rule made these
countries largely backward compared to their counterparts in the
North. The dearth of proper developmental activities in the social
sector had created a backlog that many new states in the South
inherited from their colonizers. Post-Independence, it became
impossible for a new state to clear the backlog and achieve parity
with Northern countries.

In many countries of the South, due to a late start in the state-

building process, proper political infrastructure has not yet
developed. Here, political infrastructure refers to the institutions
and processes that a mature political system normally possesses—
like a democratically elected government and parliament; an
independent election commission to conduct free and fair
elections; the existence and importance of the constitution, as well
as the opposition party; importance of the public opinion; free
press and judiciary; and rule of law. Needless to say, many states of
the South do not have this political infrastructure. So,
authoritarian rule prevails instead of democratic governance with
no or little freedom for the press and the common man. Socio-
economic development suffers in this condition.

The problems of the South and the wide North-South divide

attracted the attention of scholars of international relations all over
the world towards identification of the causes of this disparity.
Different views exist on this huge gap between the advanced North
and the less-developed South, which could be linked to several
important theories in the discipline of international relations. A
brief analysis of these different views is necessary for a proper
understanding of the North-South divide.

IR Theories and the North-South Divide

Marxist scholars analyse this disparity in terms of division of

society into economic classes, mainly owners and non-owners. The
fact that every society is controlled by the rich owning class who
oppress the poor non-owning class holds true for the international
order too. Since the time of Lenin, several Marxist scholars have
opined that the poverty of the South is the direct fallout of
accumulation of wealth by the rich capitalists of the North. The
accumulated wealth is recycled in industries of the North to earn
more profits and to buy workers there. The Dependency Theory
and the World Systems Theory (WST), considered offshoots of the
Marxist theory, link colonization by the rich North to the ultimate
impoverishment of the South. WST scholars like Immanuel
Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank and others believe that the rich
North has become the ‘core’ in international politics and economy
by extracting raw materials from their colonies over centuries.
Through such exploitation, the erstwhile colonies of the South have
become the ‘periphery’ in the international system. The core
continues to dominate the periphery because of its advantageous
position in the present international order as well. As a result of
this exploitation, the core gets all the blood while the ‘periphery’
remains anemic. The Dependency-theorists believe that it is not
possible to sustain a country’s economic growth only with internal
resources. The capitalist path of development has created an
interdependence of capital outflow, where the rich countries need
to give loans and the poor ones are compelled to borrow to sustain
their respective economies. But this interdependence is not
marked by equality, as there is a perceptible imbalance in power
relations between the North and the South, which is highly tilted,
obviously, in favour of the North.

Liberal theorists, on the other hand, relate the impoverishment of

the countries of the South to their failure to accumulate wealth and
manage their economic and political systems effectively. According
to the liberal view, the countries of the South have got enough time
following independence to revamp their economy. But due to
political instability and lack of adequate infrastructure, they failed
to improve their economy. In an interdependent world economy,
there exists ample scope for a developing economy to reap the
benefits of globalization and capital outflow to become a developed
one, think the liberals. Political stability and development of socio-
economic infrastructure are prerequisites for economic prosperity.
Many South-East Asian countries have achieved development in
this way. Liberal feminist theorists, on the other hand, point out
the central role of women in the process accumulation of wealth in
both the North and the South. They believe that women’s role in
the accumulation of wealth in the North had not been properly
recognized. It is time to focus on the role of women in the
economic development of a country. In both the North and the
South, women could play a pivotal role in the process of economic
development through wealth accumulation and redistribution.

The North-South divide is a controversial area in the study of

international political economy today. This is evident from the fact
that at present this debate is linked to many theoretical issues in
the discipline of international relations. While theoretical issues of
International Relations were discussed in detail in Chapter 2,
theories concerning the North-South divide were taken up for a
short analysis earlier in the present chapter. Having understood
the North-South divide and the theoretical issues related to it,
another question that concerns us at the present moment pertains
to the future of the current international economic order. The next
section tries to highlight this important issue.

FUTURE OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC ORDER

Since the Second World War, the state system has been playing a
very important role in international political economy. In other
words, states provide the key to the international economic system.
This is apparent from the creation of the UNO, the IMF, and the
World Bank as parts of the UN system, and from the WTO where
states are the major constituents. Despite criticism by the liberals,
the state’s leading role in IPE can hardly be ignored at the moment.
In fact, the state’s dominant role in economic activities could be
observed more in the poor South than in the rich North. Economic
activities are guided and protected by the state more effectively in
the South than in the North. However, with the onset of
globalization, mainly from the early 1980s, more and more private
players have become very active in economic matters throughout
the world. Although private players had remained involved in
economic activities in the rich North, and in a few states of the
South, since the Second World War, their increasing importance in
economic affairs all over the world today can be attributed to the
phenomenon of globalization. Thus, two parallel but linked actors
are very active in IPE today: the states and the private
corporations.

It is also argued today that with the presence of large

interdependence among different states in the global economy, the
post-Second World War distinction between national economy and
international economic system is getting blurred. As national
economies try to integrate more with the international economic
order, the barrier is more frequently and consciously breached
today than in earlier times. The concept of free trade across
borders is gaining momentum, but not without risks. Increasing
interdependence in the global economy may bring some relief to
domestic economies through the inflow of capital and goods, but it
may deprive people from getting vital social and economic security
provided by the state. Global economic interdependence may allow
national governments to shift some of its responsibilities to private
and international actors, but the social costs of this transfer may
bring disaster for people, particularly in the states of the South. At
the same time, unilateral protectionism is also not possible in our
times because it would rob a state’s economy of competitiveness,
and the desire to grow further and integrate itself with the
international economic order.

This brings in a major dilemma in IPE of our times.

Internationalization of economic activities, free trade, and
privatization may be necessary; but how far they can be stretched
is the burning question today. The great economic recession in the
US and West Europe in 2008, mostly due to the failure of the
private banking system, put a big question mark on excessive
interdependence and privatization. The State had to finally step in
and announce subsidy to overcome the crisis in the US. The
economic recession also posed a serious challenge to the liberal
idea of free trade and internationalization in economic activities.
 The economic recession in 2008 proved that the liberal views of
IPE, which seem to be very popular now, are not flawless and need
to be reassessed further. Interdependence among global economic
activities has not been effectively matched by global cooperation on
ecological, health, and demographic issues. This has further
widened the North-South gap which may not prove to be healthy
for international political economy in future.

In future, international politics will thrive on economic and social

inequalities between the North and the South. The growing North-
South divide will increasingly challenge the wisdom of liberal
economic ideas of free trade, privatization and globalization. If
more than half of the world’s population is deprived of the basic
amenities of life, capitalist economy will be put to a litmus test. In
that case, it may shift its current preference of growing
internationalism to more regional trade blocs, concentrating in
North America and Europe. The vast areas of the South may look
back primarily to domestic economic affairs, shunning
internationalism. The North-South divide may re-establish the
distinction between national economy and international economic
system, because no economic ideology can succeed if it divides the
people on the basis of socio-economic parameters.

QUESTIONS

1. Make a critical estimate of the role of the WTO in the contemporary world.
2. Write an essay on the economic order of the contemporary world.
3. Write short notes on:

a. IMF.
b. TRIPS.
4. Analyse the role of MNCs in the contemporary world.
5. Examine the causes of the North-South Divide.
6. How do you see the future of the world economic order?

11
Foreign Policies of Major Nations: India, The United
States, China, Russia, Japan, England

PART I
 INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Origin and Philosophical Base

The foreign policy of any nation is the reflection of its tradition,

cultural heritage, and socio-political and economic conditions.
Indian foreign policy is no exception. It draws inspiration from the
age-old tradition of the land, its rich cultural heritage, as well as
from the comparatively recent socio-political and economic
experiences. India’s foreign policy is imbibed with ideas of peace,
universal brotherhood, non-interference and non-violence. The
philosophical basis of India’s foreign policy is rooted in its rich
cultural heritage that rests on Buddha’s tolerance, Emperor
Ashoka’s non-violence, Sri Chaitanya’s love for humanity and
Kabir’s religious harmony. Moreover, Guru Nanak’s idea of ritual-
free religion, Tagore’s internationalism, Gandhi’s faith in non-
violence and Nehru’s socialist inclination also had profound impact
on India’s foreign policy at its formative stage. Further, the tragic
experience of the Second World War and the use of atom bombs in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki led India to put its faith on non-violence
and peace. The bloc politics of the post-Second World War period
—characterized by the East-West divide, bi-polarity, and the Cold
War that led to continuous tension and war-like situations in the
world—was deeply resented by India as it chose the path of non-
alignment in its foreign policy. In recent times, India’s foreign
policy has been influenced by globalization and the idea of free
market. Earlier, it was also influenced by the ideas of socialism,
democracy and liberalism. Thus the philosophical base of Indian
foreign policy owed its origin to the cultural heritage, socio-
political and religious views of different personalities, prevalent
international and domestic ideologies, as well as internal and
external socio-political and economic events.

As a nation-state, India emerged in 1947, after independence from

colonial rule. Any analysis of India’s foreign policy begins from 15
August 1947, the day India became independent. But in effect, the
origin of modern India’s foreign policy could be traced back to
1946, when the Interim Government was formed to oversee the
process of gaining independence. Jawaharlal Nehru, the leader of
the government, and later the first Prime Minister of India, had
started envisioning the foreign policy of independent India in 1946.
The Second World War had just ended, and the spectre of a Cold
War was prominent by that time. With his socialist inclination and
utmost resentment for bloc politics, Nehru was conceptualizing the
ideas of non-alignment in 1946. In a radio address to the people in
1946 as leader of the Interim Government, Nehru espoused the
idea of non-alignment. In his address he said: ‘We propose as far
as possible to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned
against one another, which have led in the past to world wars and
which may again lead to disaster on an even vaster scale.’ The
policy of non-alignment was thus considered as a part of India’s
foreign policy before independence.

The foreign policy of a state mainly has two sides to it—the first is
the ‘policy side’, the second the ‘application side’. The policy side
consists of the philosophical or theoretical base of foreign policy.
Generally, this part remains unaltered. The philosophical or
theoretical base of foreign policy is built upon the tradition,
culture, social and political history, and political ideas of great
personalities of the state. The application side, on the other hand,
is developed on the basis of the changing contours of national and
international politics. As such, it is more pragmatic and dynamic as
it has to constantly adjust itself with the changing demands of the
times and politics. The application side of a state’s foreign policy
may not always reflect the ideologies contained in the policy side.
For instance, one aspect of the theoretical base of India’s foreign
policy is the policy of nonalignment. But in its application, India’s
nonaligned policies were not beyond doubt during the Cold War
period. Further, one theoretical premise of the US foreign policy is
noninterference in the internal matters of sovereign independent
states. But in the application of US foreign policy, one might also
question if the Americans were true to this idea of non-interference
during and after the Cold War. Actually, the theoretical side of a
foreign policy relates to the ‘idealistic plane’, whereas the
application side relates to the ‘realistic plane’. Keeping these
distinctions in mind, we proceed to discuss the basic principles of
India’s foreign policy.

Basic Principles of India’s Foreign Policy

 The philosophical or theoretical base of India’s foreign policy
relates to its basic principles. Here is a brief discussion of these
principles.
1. The architect of India’s foreign policy, Jawaharlal Nehru believed that wars had become irrelevant
in an age of nuclear weapons because any war in future would be a nuclear war that could cause immense
destruction in the world. So, every state should avoid war in the nuclear age, and follow the path of peace
and friendship. India denounces war and calls for peace among nation-states of the world.
2. Following the ideologies propounded by Lord Buddha, Asoka and Gandhi, India believes in
practising non-violence in the world. It believes that violence can only increase violence in international
politics. Two world wars and several regional wars are testimony to this belief. So, India calls for tolerance
in international affairs and avoiding any form of violence in the international order.
3. An integral part of India’s foreign policy is respect for and recognition of every state’s sovereignty
and territorial integrity. Every state reserves the right to determine its own course of action without external
interference. India strongly reaffirms its faith in this right and believes that sovereignty and territorial
integrity of each state must be preserved at any cost.
4. India believes in harmonious coexistence with all states, especially with neighbouring countries. It
always put faith in the importance of maintaining friendly, cordial relations with its neighbours.
Cooperation among states all over the world, and particularly in the neighbourhood, has become more of a
necessity in an era of growing terrorism. So India wants to resolve its problems with its neighbours and also
with other countries peacefully, through dialogues and negotiation, without external intervention. This is
India’s stand with regard to its problems with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, and also other disturbing
issues like abetting terrorism on Indian soil, drug-trafficking, and ethnic issues. India firmly believes in
peaceful resolution of differences among different states across the globe.
5. Belief in peace in the neighbourhood is integrally associated with India’s faith in regional
cooperation. India has always vowed for cooperation with its South Asian neighbours, and worked
positively towards the creation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). It is
sincerely committed towards the principle of regional peace and cooperation, and is very much interested in
upholding and furthering the objectives of the SAARC.
6. Likewise, India is committed to maintain and respect the purposes and principles, and abide by
the decisions of the UNO and other world organizations. It believes that world bodies like the UNO are
striving hard to maintain peace and security in the world, and every state must assist the UNO in this
difficult task. World organizations also help states to sit and exchange their ideas on a common platform,
and assist the developing countries to air their voices at the international forum. They also help poorer
countries economically. This faith in world organizations has led India to join the Commonwealth of
Nations and other intergovernmental organizations without surrendering its sovereignty.
7. India also adheres to and upholds all international treaties, conventions, and statutes to which
India is a party. As a responsible member of the international community, India considers it to be a duty to
respect and follow international treaties and conventions. It also respects, as far as possible, other
international treaties and arrangements to which it is not a party, for its desire to maintain international
peace and security. However, India’s accountability to these treaties is limited and optional.
8. Finally, the principle of nonalignment, as mentioned earlier, has remained a basic ingredient of
India’s foreign policy from the very beginning. Nehru believed that bloc politics would only result in utmost
rivalry and war-like situation in the world. It would also infringe upon the freedom of sovereign states to
decide their individual courses of action, and lead them to become satellites of superpowers. Therefore,
India preferred not to align with the prevalent blocs in world politics, a path it believed was the best for the
newly independent developing countries. The country’s commitment to nonalignment did not wane a bit
with the end of the Cold War, when the very survival of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was questioned.
India believes that after the Cold War, the NAM can be effectively used to fight social and economic
injustice, terrorist threats and environmental problems, and menaces like the digital divide. The NAM is
still very significant in international affairs, and India continues to put its faith on nonalignment as an
important principle of India’s foreign policy.

Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy: The Cold War Period

This section, as well as the next, contains analyses on the evolution

of India’s foreign policy during the Cold War and thereafter, on the
basis of the terms of different prime ministers of India since
independence.
Jawaharlal Nehru (1947–64)

Since 1947, when independent India started its journey, India’s

foreign policy had traversed a tumultuous path and remained a
major area of academic interest. In this section the evolution of
Indian foreign policy during the last six decades would be analyed
according to the tenures of different Indian prime ministers.
Jawaharlal Nehru, as Head of the Interim Government in 1946,
and as Prime Minister thereafter for a long time, was the man who
primarily shaped Indian foreign policy during its formative years.
Nehru and his team provided the ideological base to India’s foreign
policy and guided India’s international relations for a considerable
period of time. The term of Nehru (1947–64) thus remained an
important and crucial era in the history of India’s foreign policy.
Nehru believed that wars had become redundant in the nuclear
age, and peace and cooperation had become the key issues in
international politics. Nehru wanted India to play a big role in this
new peaceful international order. Friendly and cordial relations
with neighbours were a priority area for him. He welcomed the
creation of the Socialist People’s Republic of China in 1949, and
extended an olive branch to the new republic. He believed that
India and China, two big states in Asia, and two great civilizations,
would be able to shape the destiny of modern Asia through their
cooperation. With other neighbouring states like Nepal, Ceylon
(now Sri Lanka), Burma (now Myanmar) and Afghanistan, he
wanted to pursue friendly and peaceful relations based on mutual
understanding. Although India and Pakistan had developed
acrimonious relations over the issue of Kashmir, Nehru was in
favour of maintaining tolerance with regard to Pakistan. He even
developed friendly relations with Britain, putting aside colonial
hangovers.
His unflinching quest for peace led Nehru to seek ‘political’
solutions to all problems rather than ‘military’ ones. He never
wanted the military as a backup force to foreign policy. In fact, he
was opposed to the idea of a strong defence policy for India, as he
believed that the balance of power existing in international politics
was a covert guarantee for India’s security.1 However, Nehru’s
views were not always shared by other world leaders. His policy of
nonalignment was viewed with suspicion initially by both the
superpowers, and India was unable to develop close contacts with
either the US or the Soviet Union. Although for strategic reasons
and Cold War political calculations, Soviet Union later came closer
to India, that proximity mainly boomed during the post-Nehru
period. Nehru’s friendly gestures towards China was also not met
with equal reciprocity as China started accusing India of meddling
in the Tibet issue, and ‘controlling’ what China described as large
parts of ‘Chinese’ territory. Much to Nehru’s shock and
bewilderment, China attacked India in 1962, and humiliated a
militarily weak India. Nehru’s China policy, viewed from an
impartial angle, failed. India’s defeat in the war of 1962 also put a
question mark over Nehru’s defence policy. It revealed starkly that
it was very difficult for a militarily weak and economically
backward state to play the role of a global leader.

Nehru was a visionary and an ideologue. He preferred to see India

assuming the position of a leader of the developing nonaligned
states. He wanted India to lead the struggling people of the
developing world. But during Nehru’s time, the country was not
militarily and economically strong enough to assume such a role.
Nehru was not much concerned about the big powers and their
estranged relations with India; he wanted to place his country as
the leader of the third world. So he wanted to endear China more
than the US, the Soviet Union or France. As a developing and a
socialist state, China drew his attention more than the US or the
Soviet Union. So Nehru was very upset when China attacked and
humiliated India.2 Among the major powers, Nehru’s India was
able to develop cordial relations only with Britain, as India’s
relations with the US, the Soviet Union and France were distant;
and with China, it was adversarial.
But at the same time, Nehru earned for India and for himself what
was perhaps a very special position of ideological leadership,
through the policies of nonalignment and peaceful tolerance.
Nehru’s India was able to provide an alternative to bipolar politics
to the vast majority of states in the developing world through the
policies of nonalignment that gradually grew into a movement.
Although nonalignment was questioned by the superpowers, it
gave Nehru and India a preeminent position in international
politics. Nehru would be acknowledged as an architect of India’s
foreign policy, and a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement.
India’s foreign policy still follows the path shown by Jawaharlal
Nehru in many respects.
Lal Bahadur Shastri (1964–66) and Indira Gandhi (1966–77 and 1979–84)

After Nehru’s death in 1964, Lal Bahadur Shastri became the

Prime Minister of India. Unlike Nehru, Shastri was not a foreign
policy person; he concentrated more on domestic affairs, his forte,
leaving foreign issues to specialists and experts. Shastri’s
government mainly followed the foreign policies pursued by the
previous government of Nehru, albeit with an important
departure: Shastri started military preparedness for India. India’s
defeat in the war with China in 1962 was fresh in Shastri’s mind as
he ordered military build-up for his country. The Indian military
put up a reasonably satisfactory performance during India’s war
with Pakistan in 1965 over the issue of Kashmir. Shastri did not
have enough time to shape India’s foreign or domestic policies. At
the behest of Soviet leaders, he had gone to Tashkent, Soviet
Union, in 1966 for post-war talks with Pakistan. He died there
prematurely.

Indira Gandhi, the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, was chosen the

Prime Minister of India by the ruling Congress Party after the
untimely death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. Indira’s premiership was
divided into two parts—the first from 1966 to 1977 and the second
from 1979 to 1984. She got plenty of time to guide and shape
India’s foreign policy. She did not alter the theoretical base
founded by her father, although she made important changes to
the ‘application side’. For instance, it was Indira who made India a
forceful regional power with a very strong military. If her father
nurtured the vision of making India the ideological global leader,
she wanted to see a militarily strong India ready to fulfill her
national interests. In fact, she abandoned her father’s policy of
equidistance from both the superpowers and gradually became
close to the Soviet Union. Realizing that alienating both the
superpowers would not help India’s national interests, she decided
to move closer to one of them, although she continued to proclaim
her faith in nonalignment. Indira Gandhi was the first Prime
Minister of India to successfully separate the ‘application side’
from the more theoretical ‘policy side’ in India’s foreign policy.

Unlike her father who liked to pursue a ‘macro’ approach in foreign

policy, Indira preferred a ‘micro’ approach as she wanted to
visualize India as a regional power rather than as a spiritual world
leader. To realize this vision, Indira concentrated on economic
development and military build-up. The process of building a
strong military for India, which started during Shastri’s tenure, got
tremendous boost during Indira’s first tenure. India gradually
became a regional power with a reasonably strong military during
her time. India’s military might was demonstrated in the 1971 war
with Pakistan, a war that India won convincingly for the first time.
The moment of glory for Indira’s foreign policy also arrived in 1971,
when the government was successful in achieving maximum
international support for India’s position in the East Pakistan
crisis. India’s military action against Pakistan in 1971 helped to
form the state of Bangladesh, a step considered a diplomatic
success for Indira Gandhi’s government. Three and a half months
before the military involvement in East Pakistan, the government
concluded a twenty-year ‘friendship treaty’ with the Soviet Union
in August 1971, considered another landmark in Indira’s foreign
policy, which in effect was a security guarantee for India from the
superpower. Through this Treaty, Indira was successful in
neutralizing the fear of American intervention in favour of Pakistan
in the 1971 crisis.

Riding on her success in 1971, Indira Gandhi actually commanded

the Simla Agreement of 1972 with a weak and vulnerable Pakistan.
This agreement, which mainly provided for peaceful settlement of
all unresolved problems between the two countries, was another
‘success’ for Gandhi’s foreign policy. Now she was in total
command, as India was also on a high from a diplomatic point of
view. A confident Mrs Gandhi, in her quest to see India as a
permanently strong power in Asia, decided to conduct India’s first
nuclear explosions in the deserts of Pokhran, Rajasthan, in May
1974. The Indian nuclear tests raised hue and cry, particularly from
the American nonproliferation lobby, as India’s relations with the
US, already not much cordial, plummeted to a new low. Whether
or not these nuclear tests of 1974 helped Indira Gandhi’s
government remained a debatable issue; but there was little doubt
that going nuclear was a very bold step for India at that point of
time.

In her first tenure (1966–77), Indira Gandhi’s foreign policy was

successful in achieving its goals. India was established as a strong
regional power and Indira proved—as she had wanted— that only a
strong state can fulfill its national interests. India’s diplomacy vis-
à-vis Pakistan was tremendously successful in the war of 1971 and
in the Simla Agreement of 1972. Although a little hesitant initially,
Indira ultimately took the bold step of establishing close political
and security relations with the superpower Soviet Union at the risk
of getting flak from the opposition parties for deviating from the
path of nonalignment. She wanted to be close to the Soviet Union
to fulfill her foreign policy goals, although she alienated the US in
the process. During her first tenure, Indira angered the Americans
for many reasons. First, the American position in the East Pakistan
crisis of 1971 was markedly different from the Indian position. The
US did not want India to wage a war against Pakistan, an American
ally in South Asia. Second, India’s friendship treaty with the Soviet
Union, a Cold War adversary of the US, did not go well with the
Americans. Third, the Americans considered India’s nuclear tests
of 1974 a violation of the international nonproliferation regime
spearheaded by the US, and opposed India’s efforts to earn the
‘nuclear weapons state’ status. India and the US thus developed
antipathy for each other during Indira Gandhi’s first tenure as the
Prime Minister of India. At this point of time, Indira did not bother
much about the US as she deliberately went the Soviet way,
realizing that one of the superpowers must be endeared to fulfill
India’s national interests.

During her second tenure (1979–84), Indira improved relations

with the US, although her liking for the Soviet Union continued.
One reason for India’s growing attention towards the US was the
presence of a strong community of Indian immigrants there, with
over 3,00,000 people in 1981.3 They influenced the gradual change
in India’s antipathy towards the US. Although differences between
the two countries over political, economic and security issues
continued, a more matured Indira was now less hostile towards the
US as more and more young Indians were preferring the US as
their destination for a job or for higher education. The change in
the Indian attitude about the Americans had actually started in the
early 1980s, during Indira Gandhi’s second tenure. However,
relations with Pakistan and China continued to be adversarial, as
both were contenders to India’s regional power ambitions, and
they were engaged in arms transfers and nuclear-power-related
transfers to put India under pressure. With Britain and other
Western powers, India’s relations were of a ‘not too close, not too
far’ nature, because Indira, like her father, maintained close
relations with the socialist East. She was nevertheless able to retain
India’s leadership role in the NAM, despite India’s proximity to the
Soviet Union. Mixing these two apparently opposing trends—
closeness to a superpower and following nonalignment at the same
time—was another diplomatic marvel during Indira’s tenures as
the Prime Minister of India. In the overall analysis, Indira Gandhi
was able to command respect for India from the international
community by cementing India’s position as a strong regional
power, and through forceful diplomacy that was successful in
achieving India’s national interests.
Morarji Desai (1977–79) and Charan Singh (1979)

After the fall of the Indira Gandhi government in 1977, Morarji

Desai of the Janata Party formed the first non-Congress, and the
first coalition, government in India. Desai was known in the West
as a person with soft attitude towards the US and the Western
world. This image of the Indian Prime Minister helped to bring the
US closer to India. Desai was also keen on breaking the perceived
Soviet-tilt in India’s foreign policy. Encouraged by Desai’s policy
stance, the US also showed its interest in strengthening relations
with India. US President Jimmy Carter paid an official visit to
India in January 1978. He was the first American President to visit
India in nineteen years, after President Eisenhower’s visit to New
Delhi in December 1959. Desai and Carter signed the ‘Delhi
Declaration’ on 3 January 1978, that called for, among other issues,
improved cooperation between the two nations, speeding up the
process of global disarmament, and the need to remove economic
disparity among nations of the world. Desai paid a reciprocal visit
to the US in June 1978, signalling warmth in bilateral relationship.
This was the first reciprocal visit of the leaders of the two nations
in a single calendar year. The visit was indicative of an improved
relationship between the US and India. The US became the largest
trading partner of India, and Indo-US two-way trade registered
impressive growth during the Desai premiership.

The Desai government also endeavoured to improve relations with

China. In 1979, India’s Foreign Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee went
to China on an official visit, the first high-level visit after the war of
1962. Vajpayee’s visit revived hopes that normalcy would prevail in
India-China relations. Vajpayee met Deng Xiaoping, the supreme
leader of China, who offered him a package solution for border
disputes between the two states. This package included the
proposal from Deng that China would accept the McMohan line in
the Eastern sector, if India recognized ‘legitimate’ Chinese claims
in the Western sector. Vajpayee told Deng that India would
sincerely consider the proposal. With Pakistan, always a foreign
policy challenge for India, the Desai government concluded the
Sallal Dam Agreement in 1978 over the controversial issue of
sharing of Chenab river waters. The conclusion of the agreement
sent positive signals to Pakistan that India was willing to improve
relations. The Janata government of Morarji Desai was indeed
keen on improving relations with all of India’s neighbours in order
to erase the label of a ‘big brother’, a label India’s neighbours
preferred to bestow on India earlier. The Desai government was
able, to some extent, to give the message to India’s neighbours that
India was interested in maintaining a healthy relation with all its
neighbours.

The Desai government fell in July 1979 due to internal feuds

among coalition partners, and Charan Singh became the new
Prime Minister of India. Charan Singh was in office only for six
months. During this short span, it was not possible for him to
determine the course of India’s foreign policy. So he decided to
maintain the status quo. But his government had to face a
diplomatic challenge when the Soviet troops entered Afghanistan
on 27 December 1979. The US expected India to condemn what the
Americans termed as Soviet ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan. But the
Charan Singh government was late in its reactions. When it finally
called the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan undesirable, the
US said that the Indian statement was too soft and evasive. With a
fragile coalition and a resurgent Congress party waiting in the
wings to assume power, Charan Singh was in dilemma to issue a
forthright statement condemning Soviet presence in Afghanistan.

In January 1980, Indira Gandhi came back to power to assume

premiership for a second tenure, with a comfortable win in the
parliamentary elections. As mentioned earlier, she tried to improve
relations with the US during her second term. But her pro-Soviet
image continued to prove a hindrance in her efforts. During this
term, she was not able to make substantial changes to India’s
foreign policy. She nurtured close relations with the Soviets,
India’s biggest supplier of defence equipments and its security
partner. India’s neighbours again developed doubts about India’s
foreign policy, which they believed would rest on ‘big power’
ambitions under the guidance of Indira Gandhi.
Rajiv Gandhi (1984–89)

After the tragic assassination of Indira Gandhi in October 1984,

her eldest son Rajiv Gandhi was chosen by the Congress Party as
the Prime Minister of India. In the parliamentary elections of
January 1985, Rajiv Gandhi won a landslide mandate to
consolidate his position as the leader of the Congress Party, and of
India. As the youngest Prime Minister, Rajiv wanted to see a
technologically equipped and economically strong India. He
visualized a modern India through the information technology
revolution. He understood that India should cultivate better
relations with the technologically advanced US and the Western
world. Although Rajiv did not deviate much from the foreign policy
of his mother, he nevertheless tried to endear the US, a trend that
was manifest in India’s foreign policy during the second tenure of
Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister of India. The perceived
Soviet-tilt in India’s foreign policy was also present during Rajiv’s
tenure, as the young Indian Prime Minister paid his first official
visit to the Soviet Union. But the Soviet visit was soon followed by
a visit to the US where Rajiv was able to establish very good
personal relations with the American President Ronald Reagan.
Rajiv’s personal chemistry with the Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev was also excellent. He was thus successful in improving
relations with both the superpowers.

During his official visit to the US in June 1985, Rajiv persuaded the
Americans to sell Cray XMP-24 supercomputers to India, a feat
considered as a diplomatic ‘success’. The Americans did not usually
give these supercomputers, important for meteorological research,
to countries outside the US lobby. Further, Rajiv was invited to
address a joint session of the US Congress, an honour not accorded
to his mother or grandfather during their official visits to the US.
This showed that the Americans gave him importance. India,
under Rajiv Gandhi, also extended friendly warmth to China. Rajiv
personally visited China in 1988; he was the first Indian Prime
Minister to visit the country after Jawaharlal Nehru. His visit did
help to ease relations with China. The most significant outcome of
the visit was the decision to set up a Joint Working Group (JWG)
to study border problems. It was decided that the JWG would meet
every year, alternately in Beijing and New Delhi. India would be
led by the Foreign Secretary in the JWG, while China would be led
by its Vice Foreign Minister. The JWG met several times since
1988, and was instrumental in suggesting various measures to
diffuse border problems between two states. The creation of the
JWG was a major achievement of Rajiv’s visit to China. During his
stay there, the two governments also concluded a few agreements
on cooperation in civil aviation, science and technology, and
cultural exchange programmes. This visit initiated a whole new
process of top-level official visits between the two countries.

Despite many successes, there was a grey area in Rajiv’s foreign

policy. His government decided to send the Indian Peace Keeping
Force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka, as per the provisions of the 1987 Indo-
Sri Lanka Accord that Rajiv had signed with J. R. Jayawardene, the
Sri Lankan President. The IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka to maintain
peace and normalcy in the strife-torn island, ravaged by the ethnic
Tamil problem. But the IPKF experience was horrific for India as
thousands of Indian military personnel died or was injured in
clashes with Tamil insurgent groups. Such casualties demoralized
the military. Moreover, the expenses to maintain the IPKF in Sri
Lanka cost the Indian exchequer heavily. The IPKF experience in
Sri Lanka proved that it was difficult for an external army to
control ethnic violence in an alien territory. The IPKF had to be
eventually withdrawn from Sri Lanka in late 1989, with its mission
remaining unaccomplished. The IPKF episode put India in a spot,
as other neighbours smelt in it a hegemonic attitude shown by the
‘big brother’ of South Asia. It also remained as a negative chapter
in an otherwise successful foreign policy pursued by the
government of Rajiv Gandhi.
V. P. Singh (1989–90) and Chandra Sekhar (1990–91)

After the parliamentary elections of December 1989, the National

Front—a coalition of several parties—formed the government with
external support from the Left parties and the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP). Vishwanath Pratap Singh, who was chosen as the
leader of the National Front, became the Prime Minister of India.
As he was more comfortable with domestic politics, his Foreign
Minister I. K. Gujral mainly steered his government’s foreign
policy. Gujral believed that it was important for India to maintain
very cordial relations with its South Asian neighbours. The V. P.
Singh government decided to withdraw the IPKF from Sri Lanka,
to send a message to all South Asian countries that India was not
interested in playing the role of the ‘big brother’ in the
neighbourhood. The Sri Lankan government welcomed this
decision, as India’s image as an ‘equal partner’ improved among
South Asian states.

However, Foreign Minister I. K. Gujral’s sincere efforts

notwithstanding, relations with Pakistan did not improve much
during the premiership of V. P. Singh. One reason for the
deterioration of relations with Pakistan was enhanced terrorist
activities in the Kashmir valley which, the Singh government
alleged, had Pakistan’s active support. The terrorists abducted the
daughter of the Home Minister in the Singh Cabinet, and
demanded release of some of their colleagues locked in different
jails, in exchange of her release. The Singh government had to yield
to this demand. Further, tension between India and Pakistan
reached a great height as both the states increased the number of
troops along the border, as reports of conflicts in the border areas
poured in. Tension at the border led to a war-like situation. In an
effort to diffuse tension, an anxious US President sent his special
envoy Robert Gates to both India and Pakistan. China and the
Soviet Union also appealed to the leaders of both the states to
reduce troops along the border. Finally, both the states reduced
troops along their border under international pressure, but
relations between them continued to suffer.

In August 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait with a view to capture

Kuwait, and international politics heated up over the issue. V. P.
Singh sent his Foreign Minister to Iraq to ensure the safety of
Indian nationals living in the Persian Gulf region. Gujral met the
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to discuss possible evacuation of
Indian citizens from the Gulf region, and also other issues. The US
expressed its displeasure with the Gujral-Saddam meeting,
although this did not cast a shadow on India-US relations. In
September-October 1990, the V. P. Singh government allowed
American fighter planes to refuel in India on their way to the Gulf.
This decision of the Singh government created domestic political
turmoil. Probably the V.P. Singh government realized the
importance of the US in the backdrop of a changing international
order with the Cold War nearing an end. This might have
prompted it to take sensitive decisions like allowing US mediation
over Kashmir (through Robert Gates) and refuelling facilities for
American fighter planes.

In November 1990, the V. P. Singh government fell due to internal

political crises. An eager Chandra Sekhar assumed premiership
with the support of the Congress (I) Party led by Rajiv Gandhi. The
Chandra Sekhar government remained in office only for six
months (till May 1991), including two months as caretaker
government (from March 1991). So, it was not possible for Chandra
Sekhar to take new initiatives with regard to India’s foreign policy.
In fact, the minority Chandra Sekhar government, with the support
of only fifty Members of Parliament, had to constantly work under
the threat of being toppled over by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress (I)
Party that was waiting in the wings to take over power. It had
neither the time nor the desire to experiment with India’s foreign
policy. It followed the policies of the former Singh government in
external affairs. Chandra Sekhar’s government also allowed
refuelling facilities for American fighter jets. Rajiv Gandhi
threatened to withdraw support from the government over this
decision. This government also supported the controversial
resolution of the UN Security Council that wanted to impose very
rigid economic sanctions on Iraq. However, the Chandra Sekhar
government, dependent on support from the Congress (I) Party for
its survival, could not last long, as the minority government fell in
March 1991. Chandra Sekhar’s government was the last Cold War-
period government in India.

India’s Foreign Policy After the Cold War

Narasimha Rao (1991–96): The First Indian Prime Minister after the Cold War

In the parliamentary elections of 1991, the Congress (I) won a

thumping majority and formed the government. Its supreme
leader Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated during an election campaign,
and the huge sympathy wave among the electorate brought back
the Congress (I) to power. P. V. Narasimha Rao was designated as
the Prime Minister by the party. He became the first post-Cold War
Prime Minister of India. The end of the Cold War brought several
important changes to the international order. To begin with, the
end of the Cold War signalled the end of the bipolar nature of
world politics that existed for forty-five years, and also the era of
bloc politics in international relations. Second, with the
disintegration of Soviet Union, the US remained the only
superpower in international politics. Third, the impact of
globalization on international economy and politics became more
pronounced than it was during the Cold War. Fourth, every state,
now exposed to a new international order, started the process of
redesigning its foreign policy with a view to adjust with the new
international system. The Rao government in India also faced the
challenge to suitably reshape India’s foreign policy to make it more
time-worthy. The new government appeared ready to face the
challenge.

Within two months of assuming power, the Rao government took a

very bold step to reform India’s economy. The government,
possibly under the pervasive impact of the process of globalization,
decided to go for liberalization of the Indian economy. Rao’s
Finance Minister Manmohan Singh announced on 24 July 1991
that India’s economy would be liberalized from unnecessary
bureaucratic control and red tapes to make it more dynamic and
competitive. He declared that foreign direct investments (FDI)
would henceforth be encouraged; and the licensing system in
industries, considered by many as the real obstacle to growth of the
economy, would be abolished. The Rao government primarily
identified ninety industries for each of which upto 51 per cent of
shares would be sold to foreign investors. Manmohan Singh also
announced that the Rao government would modernize, and if
necessary privatize, weak public sector enterprises to make them
more competitive and profit-oriented. This economic liberalization
programme, launched by the Rao government, aimed—for the first
time since India’s independence—at opening up the Indian
economy to the international market and removing protectionist
policies for industries. It was a significant departure from the so-
called ‘mixed economy’ model introduced by Nehru and followed
by India for more than four decades.

Although the economic reform programme of Narasimha Rao’s

government was very much a part of the new government’s
domestic policies, it proved to be significant for India’s foreign
policy as well. The US and other industrialized nations of the world
welcomed India’s economic liberalization and hinted at more
investments in the Indian market. In fact, data showed that FDI in
India increased significantly within two years of India’s economic
reforms. In 1990, total American investment in India was US $20
million. It rose to US $110 million in 1993.4 The industrialized
nations of the world began to express their interests in the Indian
market for the first time since India’s independence.

The Rao government realized that in the new international order

after the Cold War, economics would be the determining factor for
political equations. Moreover, to draw the US—the only remaining
superpower—closer to India, economy would be the best
instrument. During the Cold War, due to India’s Soviet-tilt, the US
and other industrialized nations of the West Bloc did not develop
noteworthy trade relations with India. Now in a changed
international order, the Rao government decided to go for a
market economy that could attract American and other foreign
investors to India. This policy was successful, as the US,
encouraged by India’s economic reforms, constituted the US-India
Commercial Alliance (USICA) in 1995 and declared India as the
‘big emerging market’ the same year. There could be no denying
the fact that India’s economic reforms, launched by the Rao
government, brought the US and other industrialized nations
closer to India after the Cold War.

The government, under Narasimha Rao, also strived hard to

improve relations with India’s neighbours. The Prime Minister
made an official visit to China in 1993. During this visit, the two
sides discussed important bilateral issues like the determination of
the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and reduction of troops along the
border. Rao’s visit helped to alleviate some of the bitterness
existing in India-China relations. Government of India signed the
important Mahakali Treaty with Nepal, facilitating generation of
hydro-electricity and its export to India. This treaty helped to
reaffirm Nepal’s faith in India. In 1995, Prime Minister P. V.
Narasimha Rao signed the South Asian Preferential Trade
Agreement (SAPTA) along with other Heads of Government of the
SAARC states, to boost the idea of free trade within the SAARC.
The government also engaged itself in economic diplomacy with
Sri Lanka. In late 1994, India and Sri Lanka announced the plan
for setting up of thirty joint venture industries in both the
countries. By 1995, thirteen joint venture initiatives started in Sri
Lanka, and another seventeen were ready to be launched in the two
countries. Through such economic diplomacy, the government was
able to break the ice in its relation with Sri Lanka that had
deteriorated after the sending of the Indian Peace Keeping Force to
the island-state.

The Rao government tried to bolster India’s security and strategic

programmes. It launched an ambitious ballistic missile technology
programme and tested successfully the Augmented Satellite
Launch Vehicle (ASLV) and the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle
(PSLV) in 1992. In 1994, India tested ‘Prithvi’, a short-range
ballistic missile that was subsequently developed into an
intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). An indigenously-built
IRBM ‘Agni’ was also successfully launched in 1994 for India’s
security purposes. Although India’s ballistic missile programme
angered the US, which was proclaiming nonproliferation as one of
its foreign policy agenda, it did not affect the relations much due to
improved trade and economic relations between the two countries.
Overall, the Rao government was successful in meeting the
challenges posed to India’s foreign policy by the altered
international order after the Cold War. The Rao government could
be credited with the introduction of a new trend of economic
diplomacy in India’s foreign policy.
H. D. Deve Gowda (1996–97) and I. K. Gujral (1997–98)

After the parliamentary elections of May 1996, the BJP emerged as

the single largest party with 160 seats. Its leader Atal Behari
Vajpayee was invited by the President of India to form the
government. But Vajpayee could stay in office only for thirteen
days, as he resigned during discussions on a vote of confidence in
the Parliament. The President then invited the National Front-Left
Front coalition to form the government. After long deliberations,
the coalition nominated H. D. Deve Gowda, a former Chief
Minister of Karnataka, as the new Prime Minister of India. He took
charge on 1 June 1996. He selected an experienced I. K. Gujral as
the Foreign Minister in his cabinet.

The Deve Gowda government put maximum emphasis on better

relations with India’s neighbours. During its short tenure, India’s
relations with neighbours like Bangladesh and China improved
significantly. On 29 November 1996, India and China signed a very
important agreement on Confidence Building Measures (CBM) in
New Delhi during the visit of the Chinese President Jiang Zemin to
India. Zemin’s visit was the first ever official visit by a Chinese
President to India. Article 1 of the agreement on CBM declared that
neither India nor China would use military power against the
other. Deployment of minimum force in border areas was also
proposed in the CBM. During this historic visit of Zemin, the two
countries also signed three more agreements: (1) agreement to
cooperate in prevention of drug trafficking and related crimes; (2)
agreement to maintain the Indian Consulate in Hong Kong; and
(3) agreement to use sea routes between the two countries for trade
and communication. A high-level delegation also accompanied
President Zemin to explore close cooperation in areas like culture,
science and technology, trade and commerce.
India’s bilateral relations with Bangladesh, the Eastern neighbour,
also showed marked improvement during the tenure of Deve
Gowda. The Prime Minister requested Jyoti Basu, the veteran
communist leader and Chief Minister of West Bengal, to visit
Bangladesh and discuss the controversial issue of sharing of the
water of the Ganga river. Basu’s able diplomacy and the positive
attitude shown by the two governments led to another historic
agreement between India and Bangladesh. This agreement, ‘the
Ganga Water Accord, 1996’, was signed on 12 December 1996 by
Deve Gowda and his Bangladeshi counterpart, Sheikh Hasina
Wajed. This important agreement helped the two nations to settle
an age-old controversial issue between them. Deve Gowda and
Gujral also extended their cooperation to Pakistan. But their efforts
failed because of the internal political crisis in Pakistan with the
removal of the Benazir Bhutto government in November 1996.
India’s economic relations with the US, the only superpower,
improved during the premiership of Deve Gowda, although
differences over security-related issues like the CTBT persisted.

In the Deve Gowda cabinet, foreign policy was mainly steered by I.

K. Gujral, the experienced Minister for External Affairs. Gujral
always put emphasis on improving relations with India’s
neighbours. In order to achieve better relations among neighbours,
and to secure peace in South Asia, he formulated a set of policies
that later came to be known as the ‘Gujral doctrine’. These were the
main principles of the Gujral doctrine: (1) as the largest nation in
South Asia, India must show a big heart. With neighbours, India
must not ask for reciprocity, but should give all that it can in good
faith and trust; (2) no South Asian country would allow its territory
to be used against the interest of another country; (3) no country
would interfere in the internal affairs of another; and (4) countries
of South Asia must settle all their disputes through peaceful
bilateral negotiations. Gujral analysed in detail these policies,
which he believed would help to build peace in South Asia, in a
speech he delivered in London in August 1996. The Gujral doctrine
remains a significant contribution of the Deve Gowda government
to India’s foreign policy in recent times.

Due to internal political crises, and pressures from the Congress

Party, Deve Gowda was replaced by Gujral as the leader of the
ruling coalition in April 1997. The latter took over as the new Prime
Minister of India on 21 April 1997. External affairs is an area Gujral
was comfortable with; and as Prime Minister he kept the Ministry
under him. Since he was the commander in Deve Gowda’s foreign
policy matters, it was important for him to continue the previous
government’s policies in external affairs. So, after taking over
charge as the Prime Minister, Gujral continued his efforts to
improve relations with neighbours with a view to promote peace
and security in South Asia. He attended the Ninth SAARC Summit
in Male, Maldives, where he also had a special meeting with his
Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif. The two leaders discussed
ways of settling outstanding problems between the two countries.
In June 1997, India and Pakistan met again in Islamabad, this time
at the Foreign Secretary level. The ‘Joint Statement’ issued after
the meeting contained some definite proposals for solving the
Kashmir dispute. It was decided at the Foreign Secretary level
meeting that the two sides would form Joint Working Groups
(JWG) to discuss outstanding problems in Kashmir, and take
necessary steps to resolve them. The issues to be discussed by the
JWG were also highlighted by the joint statement. These were: (1)
peace and security; (2) Jammu and Kashmir; (3) Siachen Glacier;
(4) Wulgur Dam, and the Tulbul Project; (5) ‘Sir Creek’ area; (6)
terrorism; (7) drug trafficking; (8) trade and commerce; and (9)
cooperation in other areas. Through this joint statement of 1997,
both India and Pakistan showed genuine and sincere efforts to
solve the Kashmir problem for the first time since the Simla
Agreement of 1972. The Gujral doctrine was India’s source of
inspiration behind this statement.

The Gujral government also wanted to improve relations with the

United States. In September 1997, the Indian Prime Minister went
to New York to address the session of the General Assembly at the
UNO. He also met the US President Bill Clinton to discuss bilateral
issues. Clinton assured Gujral that the US had no intention to
mediate in the Kashmir problem, as reported by a section of the
media, without India’s approval. This assurance by the US
President helped to clear India’s doubts about the US and brought
back faith, an important element in bilateral relations. During
Gujral’s premiership, three high-level visits to India by American
dignitaries took place. The US Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, Commerce Secretary William Daley, and Under Secretary
of State Thomas Pickering paid official visits to India from October
to December 1997. The visits of these three top-level American
dignitaries within a short span of time brought out the fact that the
US was considering India with importance. In fact research
showed that during Gujral’s short tenure as the Prime Minister
(from 21 April 1997 to 18 March 1998), India’s relations with the
US improved significantly.5 The Gujral government was able to
improve India’s relations with Pakistan and the United States, two
of the difficult terrains in India’s foreign policy.
Atal Behari Vajpayee (1998–99 and 1999–2004)

After the twelfth parliamentary elections in India, held in

February-March 1998, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a
coalition of several parties, came to power. The biggest coalition
partner (in terms of number of seats), the BJP nominated its leader
Atal Behari Vajpayee as the Prime Minister of India. Vajpayee took
over charge on 19 March 1998. The BJP, in its Election Manifesto,
promised that the party would reconsider India’s nuclear options if
it came to power. In order to fulfill this promise in its Election
Manifesto, the Vajpayee government tested nuclear bombs in the
deserts of Pokhran on 11 and 13 May 1998. Pokhran was also the
site of India’s first nuclear tests in 1974. So, the May 1998 tests
came to be known as Pokhran II. Tension mounted in the South
Asian region after these tests. Pakistan declared that India’s
nuclear tests were dangerous for Pakistani security and that they
would also conduct similar tests to ensure their security. At the end
of May 1998, Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in the Chagai Hills
region of Balochistan province. The nuclear tests by two arch rivals
of South Asia not only escalated tension in the region, it also
created unprecedented concerns all over the world. The nuclear
nonproliferation regime, so enthusiastically championed by the US
and other western powers, was put to a real test. India’s Prime
Minister Vajpayee announced that India’s nuclear tests were
conducted only for deterrence, and India sincerely believed in the
policy of ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons.

The May 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan had very adverse
effects on bilateral relations between the two neighbours. The
peace process initiated by the previous Gujral government got a
jolt due to the nuclear tests. India’s relations with the US also
suffered due to Pokhran II. President Bill Clinton condemned
India’s nuclear tests and imposed economic sanctions on India
under the US Nuclear Nonproliferation Laws of 1994. The Clinton
administration was very annoyed both with India and Pakistan as
their nuclear tests challenged the nonproliferation efforts of the
American government. President Clinton’s nonproliferation
policies were questioned by the US Congress and the media.
India’s nuclear tests and subsequent American sanctions on India
took bilateral relations to a very low. Under the sanctions,
economic aids to India from the US and other financial institutions
were stopped, and severe restrictions were put on military sales
and exchanges to India. The Vajpayee government called the
sanctions unfortunate, but at the same time reiterated that Indian
economy was resilient enough to tide over the crisis. On the whole,
India-US bilateral relations suffered tremendously after Pokhran II
in an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, reminiscent of the
Cold War times.

But doors of diplomacy were kept open both by India and the US
after Pokhran II. Within a month of India’s nuclear tests, the two
sides began top-level official discussions with a view to reduce
tension and ensure security in South Asia. From 11 June 1998,
India and the US were engaged in diplomatic talks that ultimately
led to the longest-ever diplomatic dialogues between the two
nations spanning almost three years. In these diplomatic talks, the
Indian side was led by Jaswant Singh, the Deputy Chairman of the
Planning Commission, and later the Foreign Minister of India;
while the American side was led by Strobe Talbott, the US Deputy
Secretary of State. Singh and Talbott met in different parts of the
world like New Delhi, Washington DC, Rome, and Frankfurt, to
participate in a total of twelve rounds of negotiations from June
1998 to February 2001. These diplomatic negotiations helped
immensely to normalize relations between India and the US.
Under American persuasion, India and Pakistan also agreed to
resume talks in order to reduce tension in South Asia. In February
1999, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee took a bus to Lahore (in
Pakistan) to meet his Pakistani counterpart. The two leaders
signed the Lahore Declaration on 21 February 1999. This
declaration proposed several measures to restore confidence and
normalize relations between the two nations.

The peace process initiated by the Lahore Declaration, however,

did not last long as tension mounted again over the issue of
intrusion of Pakistani troops in the Kargil region of Kashmir in
India in May 1999. Relations between the two neighbours
deteriorated again over exchange of fire between troops of the two
countries in the Kargil region. The Kargil conflict virtually led to an
‘undeclared war’ between India and Pakistan. The world, and
especially the nonproliferation lobby, became very worried about
the Kargil conflict because it could get transformed into a nuclear
war between India and Pakistan. As a consequence, the G-8
nations quickly condemned Pakistani intrusion into the Kargil
areas and identified Pakistan as the aggressor. The Clinton
administration in the US also condemned the presence of Pakistani
forces in Kargil and requested Nawaz Shariff, the Pakistani Prime
Minister who was summoned to Washington DC, to withdraw
troops from the region. For the first time since the Second World
War, the US showed its preference for India over Pakistan on the
Kargil issue. Under US pressure, and also due to the valiant efforts
of the Indian military, Pakistani troops had to finally depart from
the Kargil region in July 1999.

India’s foreign policy faced severe challenges during the first

tenure of Vajpayee as the Prime Minister of India (excluding an
earlier stint for thirteen days in 1996) due to Pokhran II and the
Kargil crisis. But there were some rays of hope in an otherwise
critical situation that India’s foreign policy faced during this
period. The Lahore Declaration with Pakistan and the American
support to India during the Kargil crisis could be identified as
positive gains for India’s diplomacy. The Vajpayee government
resigned in the wake of a vote of confidence in the Indian
Parliament in April 1999 and faced the 13th parliamentary
elections in September-October 1999. The NDA coalition was voted
back to power by the Indian electorate, and Vajpayee took charge
as the Prime Minister for a second tenure (excluding the thirteen-
day stint) on 11 October 1999.
The foreign policy pursued by the Vajpayee government during its
second tenure became more matured and sharp. This government
was able to significantly improve relations with the US, Russia,
Pakistan, the ASEAN, the European Union (EU), Nepal, and Iran.
It also reestablished diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, that
were cut off during Taliban rule in that country. In March 2000,
the US President Bill Clinton paid an official visit to India for five
days. Clinton was the first American President in twenty-two years
to visit India, after President Carter’s visit in 1978. Vajpayee and
Clinton signed a very comprehensive and futuristic bilateral
agreement, the ‘US-India Relations: A Vision for the 21st Century’
on 21 March 2000 in New Delhi. This agreement came to be
known as the ‘Vision Document’ in diplomatic circles. It outlined in
detail, the scheme of close cooperation between the two countries
in political, economic and security spheres. It was declared that the
Heads of Government of the two nations would meet at least once
a year to discuss bilateral matters and to sort out differences.
Further, an Annual Foreign Policy Dialogue under the leadership
of two foreign ministers would take place alternately in New Delhi
and Washington DC. The document also contained an elaborate
scheme to institutionalize close cooperation between the two
largest democracies. Some of the important institutions created by
it were: (1) US-India Financial and Economic Forum; (2) US-India
Commercial Dialogue; (3) US-India Working Group on Trade; and
(4) US-India Science and Technology Forum. The Vision
Document signed by Vajpayee and Clinton remained the most
comprehensive agreement ever in the bilateral diplomatic history.
It contributed immensely towards the development of India-US
relations during the Vajpayee tenure, and also thereafter. For
instance, high-level official visits and dialogues started regularly
between the two countries after the signing of the Vision
Document. Vajpayee paid a reciprocal official visit to the US in
September 2000, the first reciprocal visit in a single calendar year
after twenty-two years. Other top-level dignitaries started visiting
each other’s nation regularly, and the institutions created by the
Vision Document met as per schedule after 2000. It could thus be
observed that the ‘Vision Document’ contributed to a great extent
towards the improvement of India-US relations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin visited India in October 2000.
During his visit, Russia and India signed defence cooperation
agreements through which Russia promised to supply important
arms and aircrafts to India. This visit by the Russian President
helped the two countries to revive close cooperation in security
affairs, observed during the Soviet era. Putin and Vajpayee
emphasized the creation of a multipolar world after the end of the
Cold War. In November 2001, Vajpayee visited Russia. During his
visit, Vajpayee and Putin signed the Moscow Declaration to start
close cooperation in trade, security and political spheres. The
declaration also urged the international community to strengthen
the UN system to fight new challenges like terrorism and
environmental degradation. Vajpayee also visited England the
same month to renew friendship and cooperation between the two
countries. In July 2001, President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf
visited India with a view to normalize relations between the two
neighbours. Vajpayee and the Pakistani President had a summit
meeting in Agra to discuss bilateral issues. But the summit did not
yield any positive result due to Musharraf’s uncompromising
attitude on the issue of Kashmir. However, the Agra Summit did
manifest the intentions of the two nations to improve relations.

In order to pursue India’s ‘Look East’ policy, launched in the early

1990s with sincerity and vigour, Vajpayee visited Vietnam and
Indonesia. There he signed trade and commercial agreements with
both the states, giving boost to government and private
investments to and from these countries. As part of the Look East
policy, the Vajpayee government established close trade and
political relations with the ASEAN. India had very little connection
with the ASEAN earlier; but this government was able to
strengthen them, with its renewed emphasis on this policy. The
Vajpayee government was also the first to establish very close
relations with the EU. In June 2000, the first India-EU summit
took place in Lisbon, the capital city of Portugal. Since then regular
summits have been taking place between the two. At present,
India’s trade with the EU covers nearly 25 per cent of total Indian
trade; but initiatives for better relations with the EU started during
Vajpayee’s second tenure as the Prime Minister of India. So it
could be observed that Vajpayee was able to pursue a more
matured and focused foreign policy in his second term, because
several new and unexplored areas in India’s foreign policy, as
discussed here, were cultivated with good results during this
period.
Manmohan Singh (2004–09 and 2009-)

In the fourteenth parliamentary elections of India, no political

party got a majority mandate, with the Congress Party emerging as
the single largest party in the Parliament. The United Progressive
Alliance (UPA), led by the Congress, formed the government with
external support from the Left parties. The Congress party
nominated veteran Manmohan Singh to head the UPA
government. He took over as the Prime Minister of India on 22
May 2004. Natwar Singh assumed charge as the Foreign Minister
in the Singh cabinet, but was later replaced by Pranab Mukherjee,
another senior leader of the party. The first Manmohan-
government was in office from May 2004 to May 2009. A few bold
and novel initiatives in foreign policy matters were taken during
this period. One of such initiatives was the plan made by India and
the US in a joint statement issued on 18 July 2005, during
Manmohan’s official visit to the US, to enter into cooperation in
the area of civil nuclear energy. (This plan is hereafter referred to
as CNEC: civil nuclear energy cooperation.) The CNEC proposed to
make the two countries true partners in nuclear cooperation,
rather than adversaries. The US promised that through the CNEC,
the Bush (Jr) administration would seek agreement from the US
Congress to adjust American laws and policies with a view to
implement the CNEC. It also promised to work with friends and
allies to convince international regimes to enable full civil nuclear
energy cooperation and trade with India. The Indian government
on its part agreed, among other issues, to identify and separate
civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes, and place
India’s civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA (International Atomic
Energy Agency) safeguards voluntarily; and continue with India’s
unilateral moratorium—declared after Pokhran II—on nuclear
testing. The CNEC was a very bold initiative undertaken by India
and the US in the background of India’s refusal to sign the NPT
and the CTBT, and India’s nuclear tests only seven years ago, in
1998. The Manmohan government believed that the CNEC would
help India to join the international nuclear mainstream, from
which India had remained officially cut-off due to India’s refusal to
sign the NPT and the CTBT.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George

W. Bush (Jr) formally signed the CNEC Agreement on 2 March
2006, during Bush’s official visit to India from 1 to 3 March 2006.
As per the agreement, India would open up fourteen of its twenty-
two (65 per cent) nuclear reactors to IAEA safeguards. By 2014,
India would also separate all civilian reactors from military
reactors, and place them under IAEA safeguards. In return, India
would be given recognition as a de facto nuclear-weapons state;
and nuclear-related supplies to and from India would be accepted
by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The CNEC Agreement
created a storm in domestic politics and landed the Manmohan
government in trouble with the ultimate withdrawal of support
from the Left parties. However, the government survived with
support from the Samajwadi Party, and the CNEC Agreement was
finally put into effect from October 2008. It was a major
achievement of the first Manmohan government, because India-US
strategic partnership, heralded by the earlier Vajpayee
governments, was cemented through this agreement. Further,
India could join the international nuclear mainstream for the first
time through the agreement, and the country would be able to
harness the potential of vital nuclear energy, required for a
developing nation like India.

During his first tenure as the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh

also put emphasis on improving relations with India’s neighbours,
other important powers and regional organizations. The
Manmohan government entered into a trilateral agreement with
the governments of Bangladesh, India and Myanmar in January
2005 in Yangon. By this agreement, India wanted to pursue both
trilateral and bilateral cooperation to promote, develop and
implement projects and forums to augment the utilization and
development of energy resources and related infrastructure in the
region. The President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, visited India
from 16 to 18 April 2005 to discuss bilateral issues. He and
Manmohan made a positive assessment of the progress that had
been made so far through confidence-building measures, people-
to-people contacts, and enhancing areas of interaction; and they
 agreed to build on the momentum already achieved in bilateral
relations. The two leaders also addressed the issue of Jammu and
Kashmir and agreed to continue these discussions in a sincere and
purposeful manner to achieve a final settlement. They agreed to
pursue further measures to enhance interaction and cooperation
across the Line of Control, including agreed meeting points for
divided families, trade, pilgrimages and cultural interaction.
Unlike his last Agra Summit with Prime Minister Vajpayee, the
Pakistani President was more flexible this time, and a bit
mellowed, probably due to domestic political crisis, and discussed
on a wide range of bilateral issues. India and Pakistan continued
their bilateral negotiations at different levels throughout the major
part of Manmohan’s first tenure.

Hu Jintao, the President of the People’s Republic of China, paid an

official visit to India from 20 to 23 November 2006. During his
visit, the Chinese President met several Indian leaders and had
important talks with the Indian Prime Minister Singh on bilateral
issues. A Joint Declaration, issued in New Delhi on the occasion of
Hu’s visit, identified a ‘ten-pronged’ strategy to improve relations
between the two big neighbours. This ten-pronged strategy
referred to the following:
1. ensuring comprehensive development of bilateral relations;
2. strengthening institutional linkages and dialogue mechanisms;
3. consolidating commercial and economic exchanges;
4. expanding all-round mutually beneficial cooperation;
5. instilling mutual trust and confidence through defence cooperation;
6. seeking early settlement of outstanding issues;
7. promoting trans-border connectivity and cooperation;
8. boosting cooperation in science and technology;
9. revitalizing cultural ties and nurturing people-to-people exchanges; and
10. expanding cooperation both at the regional and the international front.

As many as thirteen agreements were signed by the two countries

in different areas. President Hu Jintao’s visit was said to be
successful in the joint declaration. Although this official claim was
not beyond debate, it was nevertheless true that the visit of the
Chinese President helped to chart a new futuristic course in India-
China bilateral relations.

The foreign ministers of India, China and Russia met at Harbin,

China, on 24 October 2007 to discuss trilateral cooperation and
global political and economic issues. This was only the third stand-
alone trilateral meeting of foreign ministers, the first one having
taken place in Vladivostok in June 2005, and the second in New
Delhi in February 2007. Although these countries have been
meeting regularly since 2002, most of the meetings have been held
on the sidelines of multilateral gatherings. In the Harbin meeting,
the three foreign ministers reiterated that the economic
development of China, India and Russia made a major
contribution to maintenance of peace and development of the
region and the world, and proved beneficial to the process of
multipolarity in the international order. The ‘joint communiqué’
issued after the meeting observed that with their continuous
development and growing role in international affairs, China, India
and Russia would further contribute to world peace, security,
stability and prosperity. This trilateral-meeting mechanism among
the three important states in international politics gathered
momentum during the first tenure of Manmohan Singh as the
Prime Minister of India.

The Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited India in

December 2008. This visit was in conformity with a series of top-
level visits by the leaders of the two countries. As Prime Minister,
Manmohan Singh visited Russia in December 2005; the India-
Russia Joint Working Group to Combat Terrorism met in October
2006; and the former Russian President Vladimir Putin visited
New Delhi in December 2007. These top-level visits and
cooperation between the two countries strengthened bilateral
relations between India and the Russian Federation. In 2006, the
Manmohan government established a strategic and global
partnership with Japan to harness the full potential of the age-old
India-Japan relations. As part of this policy, an annual India-Japan
summit between the Heads of Government was planned.
Accordingly, Manmohan Singh and Taro Aso, Prime Minister of
Japan, met in Tokyo on 22 October 2008 for the India-Japan
Annual Summit. They held the view that both the countries, as
major countries of Asia with common values and interests, must
strengthen bilateral cooperation as well as cooperation in regional
and multilateral areas with the objective of promoting peace,
stability and prosperity in Asia and the world. They also expressed
satisfaction at the growth of bilateral trade which was projected to
reach $20 billion by 2010. The two leaders welcomed the
satisfactory progress achieved in case of the Economic Partnership
Agreement (EPA) and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership
Agreement (CEPA). They expressed hope that the agreements
would be mutually beneficial and contribute to harness the true
potential of economic partnership. Further, the two prime
ministers shared the opinion that nuclear energy could play an
important role as a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of
energy in meeting the rising global energy demands; and expressed
the view that international nuclear disarmament and non-
proliferation efforts must be reinforced. They also reiterated the
importance of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. The
‘India-Japan Strategic and Global Partnership’ was another major
foreign policy initiative of the Manmohan Singh government.

An India-UK strategic partnership was also launched in 2004, and

the Manmohan government worked hard to strengthen this
partnership. The Annual India-UK Summit was held in New Delhi
in January 2008 between Manmohan Singh and Gordon Brown,
Prime Minister of UK. Brown supported, on behalf of his people,
the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, and reaffirmed his
country’s commitment to help India to join the international
nuclear mainstream. He wished to establish close strategic links
with India, as well cooperation in the areas of nuclear energy. The
two leaders expressed satisfaction at the growing cooperation
between India and UK in economic, educational, scientific, and
defence areas. Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, visited
India in January 2008 and discussed strategic and economic
partnership with India. Singh and Sarkozy announced an
ambitious plan to achieve bilateral trade of a total of Euro 12
billion by 2012. Sarkozy also expressed satisfaction at the growing
India-EU trade relations, and expressed hope that this relation
would grow further during the French Presidency of the EU from
July 2008. In this context, it must be noted that India-EU relations
achieved significant growth during the first tenure of Manmohan
Singh as the Prime Minister of India. For instance, India-EU trade
has doubled just in four years, from Euro 28.6 billion in 2003 to
over Euro 55 billion in 2007.6 India and the EU are also
cooperating in areas like defence and strategy, climate change,
education and culture, and health, and contemplating to have a
Free Trade Agreement between them.

A proper scrutiny of India’s foreign policy during the first tenure of

Manmohan Singh (2004–09) revealed that the Singh government
was successful in establishing close relations with the US, the sole
superpower in today’s world, and with all major states and regional
organizations that are important in the international order of the
times. The Singh government established close strategic and
political partnership with Japan, UK, France, and Russia as the
preceding analysis noted. With important regional organizations
like the ASEAN and the EU, the Singh government was able to
strengthen economic and political connections. India’s relations
with neighbours like China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar,
Nepal and Sri Lanka also improved during this period. Therefore,
it could be observed that India’s foreign policy passed through a
brighter phase during the first tenure of Manmohan Singh as the
Prime Minister of India.

The second tenure of the Manmohan Singh government began in

May 2009. During this phase, the government continued with the
good work it had done earlier to bolster India’s foreign relations.
The annual meeting of the foreign ministers of India, Russia, and
China took place in Bengaluru, India, on 27 October 2009. In this
meeting, the three ministers expressed satisfaction at the growing
cooperation among the three countries in different spheres, and
resolved to further strengthen the trilateral cooperation in
economic, strategic, environmental and energy-related areas. The
tenth India-EU summit took place in New Delhi on 6 November
2009, and the Indian side was led by Manmohan Singh. At the
summit, the leaders discussed regional and global issues, and the
means to strengthen India-EU relations. The leaders expressed
satisfaction over the rapid expansion of the relationship between
India and EU, including very strong trade relations, and hoped that
it would grow to be deeper and stronger, founded on a global,
strategic and mutually beneficial partnership. On 16 June 2009,
leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) met in
Yekaterinburg, Russia, to further their cooperation. The four
countries reiterated their resolve to continue close cooperation in
economic, energy-related, and environmental issues, and to
maintain peace and stability in the world. BRIC is a very important
forum of four growing economies of the world, and their
cooperation is necessary for a better world of tomorrow.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited India in July

2009. After her meeting with the new Indian Foreign Minister, S.
M. Krishna, a Joint Statement was issued in New Delhi on 20 July
2009. The statement noted:

[Both Clinton and Krishna] agreed to strengthen

the existing bilateral relationships and mechanisms
for cooperation between the Government of
Republic of India and the Government of the United
States of America, while leveraging the strong
foundation of economic and social linkages between
our respective people, private sectors, and
institutions. Recognizing the new heights achieved
in the India-U.S. relationship over the last two
Indian and U.S. Administrations, they committed to
pursuing a third and transformative phase of the
relationship that will enhance global prosperity and
stability in the 21st century.7
The two countries resolved to further strengthen their cooperation
in defence, civil nuclear energy, education, science and technology,
economy, and climate change. The leaders of the Group of Five (G-
5), that includes India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, met
in L’Aquila, Italy, on 8 July 2009, and separately issued ‘political’
and ‘trade’ declarations after the meeting. The political declaration
noted:

[T]he global economic crisis in its multiple

dimensions, including social, employment and food
and energy security risks, non traditional threats to
security such as diseases and epidemics, as well as
the challenges posed by climate change, underscore
our fundamental interdependence and the
imperative of enhancing cooperation to achieve
equitable and sustainable development for all.8
The G-5 was another notable initiative of the Manmohan
government. The second tenure of this government would be just a
year old in June 2010. So it would need more time to arrive at a
final decision on the foreign policy of this government. However, at
the moment it appears that the Singh government is determined to
follow its earlier achievements in foreign policy, and would try to
secure a prominent place for India in the present international
order.

PART II

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Origin and Evolution

The United States, the only remaining superpower after the Cold
War, has a long political history. The territory, known as the US
today, was discovered in the early sixteenth century by John Cabot,
an Englishman by birth. Cabot reached the East coast of America
and established a settlement in Maryland, Virginia. Before Cabot,
another sailor, Christopher Columbus, reached the nearby islands
of West Indies in 1492. So it was Cabot and not Columbus who
discovered America. As Cabot was a British, he ultimately handed
over the power to rule Virginia to the British monarch Henry VII,
and a British colony, the first foreign colony in America, was set up
in Virginia. Gradually other foreign powers reached different parts
of America and set up their colonies. In the Southwest, near the
present Florida, Spain established its rule. The French people
occupied Novo-Scotia, the Dutch-captured areas around the
Hudson Valley, while the Swedish set up their colony in Delaware.
The first official colony in America was set up in 1607 at James
Town. By 1732, the number of formal official colonies rose to
thirteen, all ruled by European powers. In 1664, the British
defeated the Dutch and captured the Dutch-ruled areas. Similarly,
they also captured the Spanish colonies and established British
rule over a vast area of America. Finally, the Englishmen defeated
the French in the Anglo-French war of 1763, and established their
sovereignty over the whole of America.

Anger and frustration over British rule began to be noticed in all

thirteen colonies, and protest movements started all over America.
The dissident leaders in all colonies gradually established close
links among themselves bypassing political differences. They also
set up a combined armed force to fight the British rulers. On 4 July
1776, leaders of the thirteen colonies signed a declaration
proclaiming independence from British rule. This day (July 4) is
now treated as Independence Day in the US. Although America got
freedom from British rule in 1776, it took eleven more years to start
the constitutional process in the territory. In 1787, the constitution
was adopted and the United States of America, consisting of
thirteen former colonies, was officially formed. The constitution
became effective from 4 March 1789. The two Houses of the
American Parliament (Congress), the House of Representatives
and the Senate met separately for the first time in April 1789. On
30 April 1789, George Washington took charge as the first
President of the US, and John Adams assumed office as the first
Vice President of the country. Gradually, states were reorganized in
the US and today, the US Federation consists of fifty states. An
abundance of natural resources, spectacular development of
agriculture and industry, science and technology, and above all,
human endeavour, have made the US the only economic, political,
military and technical superpower in the world.

The political history of the US is, therefore, more than 230 years
old (from 1776), and its constitutional history is more than 220
years old (from 1787). But in its long constitutional history, the US
foreign policy mainly followed a policy of isolationism—willful
abstinence from the main currents of international politics. From
1789 to 1940, the US never involved itself actively in international
politics, although it maintained diplomatic ties with several
countries. For more than 150 years, US foreign policy had an
‘isolationist phase’, with much less active involvement in
international politics outside the continent. It was not before the
Second World War that the US took active interest in international
politics. It wanted to follow the policy of non-involvement in the
Second World War as well. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who became the
US President in 1933, announced on 5 September 1939—two days
after the Second World War started—that the US would remain
neutral in the war. However, the US changed its decision later and
joined the war. Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the US on 11
December 1941, after the Japanese military bombed Pearl Harbor
on 7 December 1941. All these events compelled the US to break its
isolationism and join the war. From 1941, the US got involved with
the main currents of international politics.

The Second World War ended in 1945. The same year, Harry S.
Truman became the American President after the death of
Roosevelt. Remarkable changes took place in international politics
after the Second World War. The erstwhile major powers of
Europe were hit hard by the war and their economies were
devastated. As a consequence, they could not retain their
supremacy in international politics, and Europe, long considered
as a centre of power in international relations, failed to sustain its
preeminent position. Instead, two non-European powers, with
nuclear arms and strong industrial and military bases, emerged as
new superpowers in international politics. The US, along with the
Soviet Union (not strictly a European power with vast territories in
Asia), were the two new superpowers in the world and they
emerged as the controllers of international politics after the Second
World War. President Truman and his administration were new to
a superpower status for America, but adjusted well to play the
leading role in world politics. Truman and his Secretary of State,
George Marshall, declared grandiose plans to ‘revamp’ the
economy of West European states, many of which were American
allies during the war and American supporters after it. Overtly, the
‘Truman Doctrine’ and the ‘Marshall Plan’ were American policies
to help its friends, but the Soviet Union saw in them clandestine
designs to spread American influence in Europe, and efforts to
thwart the ‘march’ of communism in the continent. These two
policies of the US, and the issue of the division of Germany earlier,
were believed to be among the reasons for a Cold War between the
two superpowers, which the US had to sustain for four and a half
decades after the Second World War. American foreign policy was
very much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the events of the
Cold War that existed from 1945 to 1990.

It would not be untrue to state that the foreign policy of the US

(and also of the Soviet Union) was centered on Cold War issues for
four and a half decades. All American Presidents during the Cold
War period, from Truman to George Bush (Sr), framed their
foreign policies to counter the Soviet Union and its possible
‘advantage’ over the US in world politics. The creation of the
NATO, the American positions over the Korean War, the Suez
crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Hungarian uprising, the
Czechoslovak uprising, the Vietnam War, and the ‘Star Wars’
programme could be cited as some of the instances of how Cold
War political and strategic calculations dominated American
foreign policy for more than four decades. Many writers like
Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay believe that the US
foreign policy suffered from a Soviet obsession during the Cold
War. America’s (and Soviet Union’s) relations with other countries
outside the two ‘blocs’ (West and East) were also influenced by
Cold War rivalry. For instance, America’s relations with states ‘A’
or ‘B’ were termed as a counter-Soviet alliance, and Soviet Union’s
ties with states ‘C’ or ‘D’ were seen as anti-American lobby.
America, for instance, viewed India—not belonging to any bloc—
with suspicion during the Cold War period due to India’s proximity
to the Soviet Union. Sometimes non-political exchanges related to
culture, sports, science, and education were viewed in political
light and categorized as anti-American (or anti-Soviet) activities. It
would not be an overstatement to say that American foreign policy
largely suffered from a kind of fixity during the Cold War period; it
used to view the shadows of the Soviet Union everywhere, and
tried to frame America’s policies to counter this ubiquitous
presence of its rival.

US Foreign Policy After the Cold War

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War
brought new challenges for American foreign policy. The Soviet-
obsession, found largely in this policy during the Cold War, had to
be changed; and at the same time, the policy had the responsibility
to sustain the newfound role for the US (the only remaining
superpower) in the world. A new international order after the Cold
War also necessitated changes in this policy. The immediate post-
Cold War world order was mainly based on the following
conditions: (1) the emergence of the US as the only superpower;
(2) end of bipolarity and bloc politics; (3) end of American and
Western fear about the spread of socialism; and (4) an apparent
end to military rivalry with the decline of bipolarity and bloc
politics. US foreign policy was new to such conditions and it had
the responsibility to adjust itself and protect American interests in
this new international order.
Foreign policy planners in the US were ready to take up the
challenges posed by the post-Cold War international order. In a
new altered scenario, American foreign policy placed emphasis on
the following issues: (1) nonproliferation of the weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) in the world; (2) protection of human rights;
(3) economic diplomacy; (4) counter-terrorism; and (5) security
assistance programme. But it should be remembered at this point
that these issues were not refreshingly new in American foreign
policy. They were also given importance in US foreign policy
during the Cold War period. For instance, the Truman Doctrine
and the Marshall Plan were parts of economic diplomacy during
the Cold War. The security assistance programme also featured in
the US foreign policy during that period. Some of these old issues
were taken up and given new looks in the American foreign policy
after the Cold War. As such, no radical changes were introduced in
the foreign policy of the US after the Cold War; the new policy
continued to work through the amalgamation of some old and
some new issues. In fact, in the absence of the ‘Soviet-factor’,
foreign policy planners in the US were trying to adopt some issues
which would give American foreign policy a global acceptance after
the Cold War. Their objectives were fulfilled to some extent by the
adaptation of these issues in American foreign policy after the war.
Consequently, these issues were highlighted in the post-Cold War
US foreign policy.

At the time of the end of the Cold War, George W. Bush (Sr) was
the American President. The Bush administration zealously
pursued nonproliferation policies. The US Foreign Policy
Department worked hard to contain the spread of the WMD. After
Bush (Sr), Bill Clinton took office as the US President. Clinton
served two terms in office, from 1993 to 2000. His administration
was the first significant American foreign policy planner after the
Cold War. During his presidency, nonproliferation of WMD
became an important element of American foreign policy. The
Clinton administration declared different countries of the world as
nuclear ‘rogues’ and ‘threshold’ states. For instance, North Korea
and Iraq were declared as nuclear rogue states. India, Pakistan,
Israel, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina were termed as nuclear
‘threshold’ states. The US also identified South Asia as a ‘nuclear
hot spot’, along with North Korea and Iraq, and engaged in
diplomatic talks with India and Pakistan—North Korea and Iraq
did not respond to such talks—to encourage nonproliferation in
these countries. It was believed that the Clinton administration
was successful in persuading the Narasimha Rao government to
abandon its nuclear testing programme in 1994–95 (although
specific evidences were not available). The US also engaged itself in
diplomatic dialogues with other nuclear ‘threshold’ states to
prevent proliferation of WMD.

During its second term, the Clinton presidency also pursued

vigorously the nonproliferation agenda. However, it failed to
restrain both India and Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons in
May 1998. An enraged American President imposed ‘economic
sanctions’ on both India and Pakistan immediately after their
nuclear tests under the ‘Arms Export Control Act’ (AECA) passed
by the US Congress in 1994. American economic and military
transfers to both India and Pakistan were prohibited under the
AECA. President Clinton saw the nuclear tests by India and
Pakistan as a challenge to his nonproliferation policies around the
world, and therefore acted quickly to impose sanctions under the
Act. The creation of the AECA in 1994 and its imposition on India
and Pakistan for the first time in 1998, clearly indicated the
Clinton administration’s emphasis on nonproliferation issues after
the Cold War. The next American Presidents George Bush (Jr) and
Barack Obama continued the American policy of nonproliferation
of WMD in the post-Cold War world order. In a speech in Prague
on 5 April 2009, President Obama said: ‘We will reduce the role of
nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others
to do the same.… To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will
negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians
this year.’ Clearly, the priority of the Obama administration is to
secure nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the

people around the world has found renewed importance in the
American foreign policy after the Cold War. Concern for human
rights is nothing new in this policy. For instance, the US State
Department has been placing the Annual Human Rights Report
(AHRR) before the American Congress since 1977 for discussions
on human rights conditions around the world. The report contains
human rights practices and abuses in every individual country. On
the basis of this, the US Congress often decides American
assistance to individual countries. The importance of this report
has enhanced greatly after the Cold War because the label of
‘biased evaluation’, put on it during the Cold War by the non-
Western bloc, has been removed. The AHRR is now considered as
an important, mostly unbiased, document on human rights. The
US Congress puts a bar on American financial and security
assistance to those countries accused of human rights violations by
this report. Sometimes, American diplomatic relations suffer with
countries accused of human rights violations by the AHRR.
Normally, the US tries to avoid relations of economic, political or
security-related significance with countries alleged by the AHRR of
violation of human rights. But there are exceptions in case of
important powers. For instance, China is almost regularly accused
by the report of gross violations of human rights. Going by normal
practices, the US would need to ‘avoid’ any significant relationship
with China. But after the Cold War, American economic and
political ties with China have been growing significantly. US-China
two-way trade is almost ten times more than US-India bilateral
trade. Although the US Congress admonishes China almost
regularly for human rights violations, the attraction of a huge
market in China is impossible to ignore for the American private
and government businesses. The market potentiality of China
provides an explanation for the ‘soft’ American attitude towards
China, although at the same time, the US takes a very ‘hard’ stance
in case of smaller countries (and markets) like North Korea, Libya,
Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Serbia—all accused by the AHRR of human
rights violations. This proves that for an economic and industrial
giant like the US, trade and business interests often score over
human rights issues. However, American human rights policies
have become much liberal after the Cold War, in the sense that
human rights issues are used less for political purposes today than
they used to be during Cold War times.

Another important feature of US foreign policy after the Cold War

is the importance on economic diplomacy. Economic diplomacy is
not new to this policy. But this issue has been given more weight by
American foreign policy planners in the wake of globalization.
Economic diplomacy places importance on trade and business,
keeping aside political considerations. After the Cold War, the US
worked hard to pursue policies of economic diplomacy with
different states. Enhancing trade and commercial relations with
other countries, providing investment opportunities to American
capital in different parts of the world, increasing American
financial assistance for industrialization and developmental
activities in other states, all these constitute integral elements of
American economic diplomacy. With the onset of economic
liberalization in many developing countries after the Cold War,
economic diplomacy has proved to be a very useful tool for
American foreign policy. Such liberalization has provided an
unprecedented opportunity to American business to spread its
wings in different parts of the world. The US has strengthened its
presence through capital investment, trade and commerce in many
developing states, including China, India and the former Socialist
bloc countries. Improved economic ties with many countries have
helped the US to erase political differences. For instance, a very
strong US economic relationship with China helped both countries
to overlook political differences. The US also had political and
strategic differences with India in the post-Cold War period over
issues like the Indian nuclear tests and signing of the CTBT. But
India-US relations have grown stronger after the Cold War, mainly
due to strong economic ties between the two countries. In fact, all
American administrations after the Cold War have successfully
used economic diplomacy as an effective instrument of foreign
policy to serve American national interests in different parts of the
world.

Counter terrorism constitutes another important aspect of US

foreign policy after the Cold War. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the
US have strengthened American counter-terrorism policies. The
Bush (Jr) administration declared a ‘war on terrorism’ after the
9/11 incidents and vowed to fight the menace throughout the
world. Bush’s ‘war on terrorism’ contained four major policies: (1)
no compromise with terrorism and terrorists, and no exchange or
settlement with terrorists (like release of detained terrorists or
economic exchanges); (2) judicial trial of terrorists for crime
against humanity; (3) isolation of countries providing help to
terrorists from the international community, and pressurizing
these countries to abandon their harmful activities; and (4)
provision of all kinds of assistance to states engaged in the fight
against terrorism. The Bush (Jr) administration also declared an
‘anti-terrorism assistance programme’ that contained, among
other things, military training, exchange of information and
security assistance to countries involved in the war on terrorism.
Further, a ‘rewards for justice’ programme announced by the Bush
Administration sought to exchange information about
international terrorists with friendly states, and give rewards of
upto US $25 million for information on international terrorists,
and assistance to capture them. The Obama administration also
stepped up American efforts on counter-terrorism. For instance,
Obama’s ‘Af-Pak Policy’, announced in March 2009, sought to
eliminate terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda and the Talibans from
Afghanistan and Pakistan and provide massive economic and
security assistance to these countries to eliminate terrorist
activities from their soil.

Security Assistance Programme (SAP) became an integral part of

US foreign policy after the Second World War. Almost 50 per cent
of American assistance to different countries during the Cold War
period came under this programme, which was considered crucial
for American strategic interests to counter Soviet influence.
However, after the end of the Cold War, the future of the
programme was hotly debated in the US. In the absence of the
Soviet Union, whether it would be wise for the US to spend huge
amounts on the SAP became a controversial issue. But all
American Presidents after the Cold War preferred to continue with
the programme, and the US Congress approved the budget on the
SAP from time to time. The continuance of the programme by all
American administrations during the post Cold War period proved
the importance of the SAP as an element of American foreign
policy in recent years.

The SAP contains several programmes like Foreign Military

Financing (FMF), Economic Support Fund (ESF), International
Military Education and Training (IMET) and Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR). About 95 per cent of the SAP-money is spent on
FMF and ESF. President George W. Bush (Sr), the first US
President after the Cold War, lobbied hard to retain the SAP after
the Cold War. Bush considered SAP as a very significant part of US
defence strategy. He identified three areas in the American
Defence Strategy which could be bolstered by the SAP. They were:
(1) meeting crisis situations; (2) reorganization; and (3) presence
of US military in other countries as per requirements. He believed
that the SAP would be very useful to protect vital American
interests, mainly in these areas. After Bush (Sr), all post-Cold War
American Presidents lent their support for the SAP and continued
to consider it as an integral part of American security policy. After
the Cold War, the SAP was used to strengthen democratic
processes in East Europe, help counter-terrorism and anti-narcotic
activities around the world, strengthen the maintenance of
international peace and security, and above all, protect American
national interests. The US Congress also allocated enough money
to keep the SAP going during the post-Cold War period.

American foreign policy after the Cold War mainly rested on the
five pillars, as mentioned in the second paragraph of this section.
America’s foreign relations after the Cold War were largely guided
by these five policies. For instance, US-China relations are
dominated by economic diplomacy, whereas American diplomacy
with Sudan, Libya and North Korea hinges on human rights issues.
Further, American relations with many countries in the Middle
East, Russia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are mainly guided by the
SAP. But it should be remembered here that no country’s
international relations are dependent on any particular foreign
policy issue, and the US is no exception in this regard. America’s
international relations are also dependent on a combination of
foreign policy issues. As such, nonproliferation issues, economic
diplomacy and the SAP may be applied together for maintaining
America’s relations with another country. Sometimes American
foreign relations with a country may be guided by a combine of
three, four, or all the five policies outlined here, depending on the
time, the situation, and the US national interests.

US-India Relations After the Cold War

America and India did not have a close relation during the Cold
War. Mutual disbelief and misunderstanding dominated bilateral
relations from 1947 to 1990. The US did not trust India or its policy
of nonalignment due to India’s Soviet-tilt. It considered India as a
Soviet ‘stooge’ during the Cold War. India, on the other hand, then
viewed the US as a neo-imperialist and neo-colonial power with
the ultimate motive to dominate the world. America’s ‘soft’ attitude
towards Pakistan also alienated it from India. Such mutual
disbelief and mistrust during the Cold War created differences
between the two largest democracies. American diplomat Dennis
Kux said US-India relations during the Cold War to be ‘estranged’.
However, the end of the Cold War created new opportunities for
both India and the US to come closer and renew their relationship.
There were several reasons for such opportunities: (1) the
disintegration of the Soviet Union; (2) India’s economic
liberalization; (3) the increasing economic and political clout of
Indian Americans in the US; (4) the emergence of the US as the
only superpower; and (5) no special treatment of Pakistan by the
US due to the end of Cold War political calculations. It was
believed by experts in both countries that the presence of these
opportunities would help the two nations to forge a strong
relationship after the war.

Some of the opportunities were used significantly after the Cold

War by both governments to strengthen US-India relations. For
instance, India’s economic liberalization in 1991 helped to initiate
close economic ties between the two nations. The US welcomed
India’s economic reforms and American investment in the Indian
market enhanced to a great extent. US-India twoway trade also
registered significant growth. In 1991, the total volume of US-India
bilateral trade was US $5,070 million. The volume of bilateral
trade rose to US $14,353.80 million in the year 2000. This amount
grew further to US $28,140.70 million in 2009 (till September
2009).9 In 1991, total American investment in India was US $97
million. It grew to US $900 million in 2000 and US $1,802.0
million in 2008–09 (April 2008-March 2009).10 These data
indicate that India’s economic reforms gave a boost to US-India
trade and American investment in India. In fact, India-US
economic relations got significantly strengthened after India’s
economic liberalization, and became the driving force behind an
overall close relationship.

The emergence of the US as the only superpower after the Cold

War, along with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, also helped
US-India relations. Foreign policy planners in India were quick to
realize that it would not be prudent for India to continue its
estrangement with the world’s only super power. This realization
led India to come closer to the US. On the other hand, the absence
of the Soviet-factor and Cold War political calculations led the US
to befriend India, an emerging market for American business, and
a big power in Asia. Mutual trust, missing in bilateral relations for
a long time, began to grow in US-India relations after the Cold
War. The Indian Americans also played a big role in strengthening
bilateral relations. The highly educated and economically well-off
Indian Americans constitute the second-highest earning
community—after the Japanese Americans—in terms of per capita
income in the US. As successful individuals in different walks of
life, the Indian Americans started becoming actively involved in
American politics as well. Many of them are now important
members of the two leading political parties in the US. In 1992, the
Indian Americans formed the ‘Congressional Caucus on India and
Indian Americans’, popularly known as the ‘India Caucus’, to
influence America’s India-policy inside the US Congress. Although
the India Caucus has its limitations, it nevertheless was successful
in influencing American decision to back India during the Kargil
crisis in 1999. It also played an important role in achieving the US-
India Civil Nuclear Agreement. Overall, the contribution of the
Indian Americans in forging a strong bilateral relationship after
the Cold War could hardly be ignored.

President Bill Clinton paid an official visit to India in March 2000.

This visit was historic because Clinton was the first American
President to visit India in twenty-two years (after President
Carter’s visit in 1978). He was the fourth US President in fifty-three
years (1947–2000) to pay an official visit to India. This visit was
seen as the outcome of a close relationship between the two
countries after the Cold War. On 21 March 2000, US President
Clinton and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee signed the ‘Vision
Statement’ (VS) in New Delhi. This statement became a significant
document in bilateral diplomatic history as it provided a detailed
outline of the areas of closer cooperation between the two nations
in future. The VS announced institutional mechanisms to expedite
cooperation in different fields. These are some of the institutional
mechanisms created by it: (1) US-India Financial and Economic
Forum; (2) US-India Commercial Dialogue; (3) US-India Working
Group on Trade; (4) Joint Consultative Group on Clean Energy
and Environment; and (5) US-India Science and Technology
Forum. The statement also declared that the Heads of Government
of the two countries would meet regularly—at least once a year— to
augment cooperation. Further, Annual Foreign Policy Dialogue at
the ministerial levels would take place to ensure close cooperation.
The VS also suggested the creation of ‘High Level Coordinating
Groups’ to monitor progress in bilateral cooperation. Vajpayee
paid a reciprocal visit to the US in September 2000. This was the
first reciprocal visit to the US—after Morarji Desai’s in 1978—in
twenty-two years; it signalled a markedly improved US-India
relationship. After these reciprocal visits in 2000, bilateral
relations witnessed gradual upswing, and the signing of the Civil
Nuclear Agreement between George Bush (Jr) and Manmohan
Singh on 2 March 2006 in New Delhi was the outcome of this
upsurge in US-India relations after the Cold War. Since 2000, the
Heads of Government and other important leaders of the two
countries have been meeting regularly and very intense
cooperation in different fields have been taking place between the
two largest democracies in the world.

There were, however, apprehensions in some quarters about the

sustenance of a strong US-India relationship under the Barack
Obama administration, due to Obama’s anti-outsourcing policies,
affinity for China, and the Af-Pak policy that sought to reinstate
Pakistan as central to US strategic and counter-terrorism policies.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s delayed visit to India in July
2009, which ‘finally’ took place several months after she visited
other ‘important’ Asian countries, added fuel to such speculations.
But during Manmohan Singh’s official visit to the US in November
2009, President Obama called India ‘indispensable’ for the US and
assured that close links with India in economic and strategic areas
would continue. Earlier, the American President had hinted that he
was committed to take the Civil Nuclear Agreement to fruition.
During the visit, Singh said that US-India relations rested on ‘five
Es’ at the concluding stages of the first decade of the twenty-first
century. The five Es that Manmohan highlighted were: Economy,
Energy, Environment, Education, and Empowerment. He believed
that these five Es would guide future US-India relations along with
defence, security and counter-terrorism. President Obama had
expressed considerable admiration for India since he took office in
January 2009, and it could be hoped that the future of US-India
relations under the Obama administration would remain secure.

Grey areas still persist in US-India relations in 2010. India has not
signed the CTBT, and the Obama administration may put pressure
on India to sign it. This may create ruptures in bilateral relations.
Moreover, despite growing volume of two-way trade, the problem
of trade balance still persists. India will have to be careful in this
regard. Obama’s Af-Pak policy and proximity to China may become
irritants for India. But US-India relations have matured
sufficiently during the last decade (1999–2009) since America’s
support to India in the Kargil crisis. The good work done by
presidents Clinton and Bush (Jr) would not be totally undone by
the Obama administration, because the Americans have strategic,
political and business interests, in India at this moment. The two
countries have more converging interests to pursue than diverging
interests. These interests would help to reinforce US-India
relations in future.

PART III

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Origin and Evolution

Today’s People’s Republic of China (PRC) has a rich political

history. One of the most ancient civilizations, China’s political
history is nearly seven thousand years old. During this long
political history, China was under various rulers and political
systems. It had dynastic rulers who ruled the land for long periods.
Notable among them were the Shang, the Chou and the Manchu
dynasties. The Manchu rulers governed China for a very long
period, from 1661 to 1911. They were able to create a large territory
that included Tibet, Mongolia and Sinkiang. But at a later stage,
the Manchu rulers were unable to govern and protect this large
empire. Inefficiency, corruption and extravagance of the later
Manchu rulers led to the downfall of the Manchu dynasty. This
unstable situation was exploited by different foreign powers to
proclaim their dominance in different parts of China. The Russian,
German, British and Japanese forces occupied these parts. But it
should be remembered at this point that entire China never came
under any particular foreign rule; parts of the land were occupied
by different foreign rulers at different times. To protest against the
presence of foreign rulers, and the corruption in Manchu rule, the
Boxur Revolt was led by Sun Yat Sen during 1895–1900. Although
this revolution was not totally successful, it nevertheless inspired
people to unite against foreign rule and the Manchu dynasty.

After the end of Manchu rule, Sun Yat Sen became the leader of
China in 1912. Since then, China experienced a republican system
instead of the earlier monarchical system. Before the First World
War, Sun Yat Sen relinquished power in favour of Yuan Shi Kai,
although Sen and his Kuomintang Party were very influential in
China during this period. During the First World War, Yuan Shi
Kai declared himself as the Emperor of China reviving possibilities
of returning to a monarchical system again. However, after the
death of Shi Kai in 1916, the Kuomintang appointed Li Yuan Hang
as the President of China, and declared China as a Republic. The
tremors of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 were also felt
in China, and the Chinese Communist Party was set up in
Shanghai, the largest Chinese city, in 1920. Several members of the
Kuomintang joined the Communist Party under the influence of
the Bolshevik revolution, and socialism.

After the death of Sun Yat Sen in 1925, Chiang Kai Shek assumed
leadership of the Kuomintang party and China. Kuomintang
preferred to call itself a nationalist party with the aim to create a
unified China, and Chiang Kai Shek became, as the undisputed
leader of his party, the harbinger of this aim. But Chiang had
problems to realize the dream of a unified China. Among these
problems, Japanese aggression, internal political and
administrative corruption, and the increasing popularity of the
Communist Party under the leadership of Mao Zhe Dong were
prominent. Since 1935, Mao was pressurizing the Kuomintang
government for rapid land reforms programme in favour of the
peasants. Mao and his Communist Party started to concentrate on
rural areas working on the welfare of the rural people, mainly
peasants. This focus on rural areas yielded tremendous results as
the popularity of Mao and his party soared in a largely rural,
agrobased China. Before the Second World War, the communists
gave issue-based support to the Kuomintang to fight Japanese
aggression; but their ideological differences continued.

Gradually the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) emerged as an

organized, popular, and respectable political outfit, and during the
Second World War they became a formidable political force in
China. There were several reasons behind the phenomenal growth
of the CCP: (1) Mao’s very able leadership; (2) call for land reforms
and establishment of rights of the peasants; (3) support from the
‘socialist’ Soviet Union; and (4) a corrupt Kuomintang rule. Mao
was trying to topple the Kuomintang regime, and training the
communists to fight the Kuomintang. In 1946, a civil war started in
China between the communists and the Kuomintangs. The US
supported the Kuomintang regime through military and economic
assistance. But the communists who were more organized and
efficient (in guerilla warfare) won the civil war, and created the
modern Peoples’ Republic of China on 1 October 1949. Chiang Kai
Shek fled to Formosa (now Taiwan). The modern Chinese state
(PRC) was born in 1949 and Mao Zhe Dong became its supreme
leader. From 1949 till his death in 1976, Mao Zhe Dong was the
undisputed leader of the PRC, and the chief architect of China’s
foreign policy.

Foreign Policy of China Under Mao Zhe Dong (1949–76)

Mao’s revolutionary background and faith in socialism influenced

his foreign policy agenda. America’s assistance to the Kuomintang
regime during the civil war in China, and later in Taiwan, led him
to locate the US as an adversary. He believed that after the Second
World War, when European imperialism had taken a backseat, the
Americans had assumed the role of a neo-imperialist and a
neocolonialist. Mao’s PRC was very critical of the American role in
Taiwan and in other parts of the world, where the US was allegedly
trying to interfere in the domestic affairs of states through
economic and security assistance. American interference in the
Korean War in 1950 angered Mao, and China’s relations with the
US plunged to an abysmal low after the Korean War. At various
times in his leadership, Mao openly labelled the US as an imperial
and neocolonial power. Understandably, China’s relations with the
US were much strained from the beginning. Mao was also sceptical
about other Western European powers like Britain, France, West
Germany and Italy for their perceived anti-communist ideological
positions. As a committed person to socialist ideologies, Mao was
deeply resentful of the West Bloc, and almost turned China away
from the Western world. China thus had very little relationship
with the West European states, which were viewed as harbingers of
capitalism and agents of the US by Mao and his PRC. So China’s
relations with the US and other Western powers were very cold and
distant during the Mao era.

Mao’s PRC went on a bonhomie with the Soviet Union, the first
socialist state in the world, a superpower and a supporter of the
Chinese communists during China’s civil war and thereafter.
Ideological proximity and material support brought the Soviet
Union closer to China. Moscow gave huge economic and
technological assistance to China after 1949, when the state-
building process was going on in full swing. China was creating its
industrial and transport infrastructure with Soviet assistance
during this time. But the Soviet-China proximity did not last long,
as differences emerged from the mid-1950s, overtly on the issue of
transfer of poor Soviet technology to China, but covertly over the
broader issue of leadership of the Socialist bloc. The Sino-Soviet
rift became very pronounced by the early 1960s as both China and
the Soviet Union accused each other to be a ‘social imperialist’.
China strongly condemned the Soviet role in the Cuban Missile
Crisis of 1962. The same year, the two countries levelled charges of
illegal occupation of territories around their borders against each
other. China also severely criticized the presence of Soviet troops in
Czechoslovakia in 1968 to curb a popular movement against the
communist government. From the mid-1960s, China tried to be
close to the East Bloc countries, only to arouse further Soviet
suspicion. The Soviet Union viewed this Chinese zeal as designs to
curb the Soviet influence in the East Bloc countries. However,
China was able to develop close relationship with Albania by the
mid-1960s. An angry Soviet Union stopped economic and
technological assistance to Albania as a retaliatory measure. The
Sino-Soviet rift continued throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, as
both the socialist countries tried to provide leadership to other
socialist states during this period, and viewed the other with
suspicion and mistrust. US President Richard Nixon’s visit to
China in 1972 further fuelled the suspicion. Soviet leaders alleged
that China was trying to build an unholy nexus with the US to
marginalize the Soviet Union in international politics. China’s
relations with the socialist superpower were thus mostly
adversarial in Mao’s time.

Mao’s China provided support to the anti-colonial struggle in the

developing states with the desire to become the leader in those
states. For this purpose, China supported the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) and participated in the Bandung Conference in
1955 that formally created the NAM. China also became friendly
with India, and the two big countries of Asia went along well for
some time. But from the late 1950s, border disputes and the issue
of Tibet created serious differences between the two countries
which ultimately led to the 1962 Indo-China war. During the initial
years after the formation of the NAM in 1955, China was keen on
becoming a leading nation in the NAM. But differences with India
—and later with Indonesia—and the broader issue of leadership of
the Socialist bloc refrained Mao from taking very active interest in
the NAM. Instead, China concentrated on building good relations
with some other Asian states like Burma (now Myanmar), Nepal,
and Pakistan. Foreign policy analysts in India viewed this Chinese
move with suspicion, a latent design to isolate India and
strengthen anti-India sentiments in these countries. However,
China’s efforts to become a leader of the third world failed, as it
could not take leadership in the NAM, and as it developed
acrimonious relations with many third-world countries.

After 1965, China’s relations with Indonesia and many other

countries in Africa and Latin America deteriorated. Indonesian
President Suharto alleged that China was instigating the
communists in Indonesia with a view to create internal
disturbances in the country. Suharto severed diplomatic relations
with China. Three African states, Burundi, Ghana, and Central
African Republic, cut off diplomatic relations with China in 1965–
66. Kenya also condemned the aggressive ‘socialist imperialism’ of
China during this time. Mao’s China also failed to develop close
connections with the developing countries of Latin America. It
tried to woo Cuba to come out of Soviet influence by condemning
Soviet role in the Cuban Missile Crisis; but Fidel Castro, the
supreme leader of Cuba, remained committed to the Soviet Union
during and after the crisis. China’s aim to lead the third world
against the ‘imperialistic’ policies of the two superpowers was not
realized, as Mao’s China got estranged from several third world
countries.

Viewed from an objective standpoint, Mao’s foreign policy was not

very successful. He isolated both the superpowers and developed
adversarial relations with them. With important states of the third
world like India, Indonesia and Yugoslavia (all leaders of the
NAM), Mao’s China developed very antagonistic relations. China
also remained isolated from the industrially developed Western
European countries due to Mao’s apathy for these ‘capitalist’,
formerly colonial powers. Mao, who was supposed to develop
cordial relations with the poor states for his support to the
anticolonial freedom struggle in poor countries, also isolated poor
countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The Soviet influence
over East Europe was a deterrent for Mao to make any significant
impact in East Europe, although he tried and succeeded to
establish close links with one or two smaller states in the region.
But he failed to bring them out of the Soviet ring. The ideological
underpinning of Mao’s foreign policy, to avoid the ‘colonial’ and
‘imperial’ powers, did not help China economically or politically, as
China got estranged from the industrially developed US and the
West. The confusion in Mao’s foreign policy was manifested
further when China got entangled in bitter rivalries with a
‘socialist’ Soviet Union, and ‘nonaligned’ India and Indonesia, and
other developing countries of the third world with whom Mao’s
ideology should have gone well. Instead, Mao’s China was soon
termed as politically ambitious, with an eye to leadership in the
socialist bloc, and the third world. This China aroused suspicion in
the world, and as a consequence, failed to win friends. During
Mao’s tenure, China remained largely estranged in international
relations.

China’s Foreign Policy After Mao (1977–91)

China’s foreign policy during the Cold War years could be classified
mainly into two parts: first, the Mao era (1949–76); and second,
the Deng era (1978–97). This proposition clearly refers to the fact
that after the death of Mao Zhe Dong, China’s domestic and foreign
policies were controlled by another supreme leader, Deng Xiao
Ping. Although Deng officially assumed leadership in 1978,
succeeding Hua Guo Feng, who took over leadership for a very
short period (1976–78) after Mao’s death, Deng’s rise in Chinese
politics could be noticed from 1977. From 1977 till his death in
1997, Deng Xiao Ping remained the most prominent figure in
Chinese politics. Consequently, Chinese foreign policy was also
controlled by Deng during this period. He made significant
departures from Mao’s policies, both in domestic and international
spheres. Mao’s foreign policy was loaded with ideological issues
like distance from the ‘capitalist’ and ‘imperialist’ states, spreading
the message of socialism, supporting ‘revolutionary’ communist
and nationalist movements around the world. Deng’s foreign and
domestic policies were considered more pragmatic than
ideological. Deng was the architect of economic reforms in China
which opened hitherto closed Chinese doors to the industrially
developed Western world. Chinese economic reforms helped Deng
to pursue a more realistic and internationally acceptable foreign
policy.

Deng realized that it would not help China much to isolate both the
US and the Soviet Union simultaneously. For China’s economic
development, the US, Western European states and an industrially
developed Japan were crucial and more welcome than the socialist
rival, the Soviet Union. China could no longer afford to ignore the
Western states as ‘capitalist’ and ‘imperialist’ powers. In 1979,
Deng’s China established diplomatic relations with the US. Apart
from economic interests, a common adversary (the Soviet Union)
also brought China and the US closer. American President Richard
Nixon tried to break the ice in Sino-American relations by visiting
China in 1972. But differences between the two nations persisted
over Taiwan—which China claimed as its territory but the US
considered as a sovereign independent country—and Mao’s label
on the US as an ‘imperialist’ power. Therefore, Sino-American
relations continued to be indifferent during the Mao period. It was
Deng who broke real grounds to establish closer links with the US
and other developed states of the West.

Deng used economic diplomacy to attract these states towards

China. In 1979, China opened up its economy, allowing private
business to proliferate and foreign investment to come. Deng made
a very new experiment for China. He retained Communist Party’s
control over Chinese politics and the state, but transformed
Chinese economy into a liberal market economy. A new Chinese
Constitution was introduced in 1982 to facilitate liberal economic
developments in China. Deng’s China created Special Economic
Zones (SEZ), mainly in the coastal areas, to give special privileges
to foreign investors. Now, the industrially advanced states,
apathetic to China for long for its ‘closed door’ policies, felt
encouraged and got attracted to China. The socialist market
economy (SME) that Deng introduced in China was a new model in
international politics and economy. It retained one-party control in
Chinese politics and society, but allowed deregulation of the
economy. Although there were initial schisms about the SME, it
gradually proved to be a huge success and made Deng, the
conservative pragmatist, the undisputed leader of modern China.

Deng’s foreign policy, must, therefore, be analysed in the context of

the SME and his conservative pragmatism. The success of the
state-controlled liberal economy in China, manifested through its
economic growth rate, made China a very attractive destination for
foreign investments. American, Japanese and west European
private business started to enter China in a big way from the early
1980s, paving ways for the relegation of political differences to the
background. China’s annual average economic growth rate for the
decade 1960–70 was 5.2, and for 1970–80 it was 5.5. During the
next decade (1980–90), when SME was operating, China’s annual
growth rate rose to a staggering 10.3, almost double the average
growth rate of the earlier two decades (source: International
Monetary Fund). Therefore, Deng’s China was economically
stronger than Mao’s China, and it was easier for an economically
open and strong China to conduct international relations with
more determination, zeal and success. As China shed its ideological
bias to invite foreign investments from the ‘capitalist’ and
‘imperialist’ states of the West, these industrially developed
nations also changed their views about a ‘rigid’ and ‘closed’
socialist state in Asia. Gradually China’s relations with the Western
world improved, as China began to play, from the early 1980s, a
significant role in mainstream international economics and
politics. Mao’s China also wanted to play a major role in world
politics, but could not fulfill its desires due to China’s closed
economy and adverse international relations; but Deng’s China,
economically open and strong, could play this desired role more
easily, as China became more acceptable to the rest of the world.

China’s relations with the Soviet Union also improved after

Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR in 1985. Border
trade between the two socialist giants went up and got
strengthened by the late 1980s. Gorbachev paid an official visit to
China in May 1989. Before his visit, the Soviet Union announced
the withdrawal of 5,00,000 Soviet troops from its borders with
China. Chinese leaders welcomed this Soviet gesture. In 1990, Li
Peng, Prime Minister of China, visited the Soviet Union. A ten-year
vision on close cooperation in trade, economic and technological
areas between the two countries was announced during Peng’s
visit. With ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ taking shape, the Soviet
Union also opened up and shed its earlier hostility towards China.
As a consequence, Sino-Soviet relations began to improve. Deng
also reached out to third world countries, including India, to assess
possibilities of improved trade and commerce. By the early 1990s,
when Cold War was nearing its end, China secured its place in the
international order as a rapidly growing economy, a strong
military, and a more open state with a realistic view of the world.
China’s journey towards a major power status continued after the
end of the Cold War.

China’s Foreign Policy After the Cold War

China maintained its spectacular economic growth after the Cold

War and continued to use economic diplomacy as its major thrust
in international relations. Although an ageing Deng Xiao Ping
resigned from all official posts in 1991, he remained as the central
figure in Chinese politics, and virtually controlled the party and the
state in China till his death in 1997. The SME brought economic
gains for China, which subsequently helped China in conducting
international diplomacy more effectively. After the Cold War, the
US remained the only superpower in an altered international
order. Deng’s pragmatic China wanted to be close to the world’s
only remaining superpower. The US also wanted to forge strong
economic relations with China because of its emerging market.
Mutual interests brought these two countries close after the Cold
War. In 1994, the US granted the ‘Most Favoured Nation (MFN) in
Trade’ status to China. Despite persistent criticism in the US
Congress about human rights violations in China, the US did not
hesitate to grant MFN status to China for trade and economic
interests. By 1998–99, China became the fourth largest trading
partner of the US with bilateral trade reaching US $94.9 billion at
the end of 1999. Sino-US two-way trade was only US $2.4 billion in
1979.

In 2001, China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO),

backed heavily by the US. Since then, it has become a major player
in the WTO, supporting interests of the developing states. Sino-US
trade continued to escalate in the new century as well. Two-way
trade reached a substantial US $409.2 billion in 2008.11 The US
emerged as the top trading partner of China in 2008 and 2009,
with Japan emerging as the second largest trading partner in 2009.
These data revealed how China had used its economic diplomacy
after the Cold War to bring former adversaries close towards
China. Despite occasional American concern for an authoritarian
political system, and violation of democratic and human rights in
China, the US-China economic relations remained very strong after
the Cold War, and these would continue to remain strong in the
future for mutual trade and business interests. Strengthened
economic relations also helped Sino-American political relations to
improve after the Cold War. Top-level mutual visits by the leaders
of the two nations continued after the war. American President
Barack Obama visited China in November 2009. The US-China
joint statement issued during Obama’s visit acknowledged China’s
leading role in world politics, and particularly in Asia. The
statement, which raised eyebrows in India, clearly indicated that
China occupied a dominant role in Asia. It appeared to highlight
the new Democratic Administration’s preference for China. This
preference may also strengthen US-China political relations in
future.

With Gorbachev becoming the President of the Soviet Union, Sino-

Soviet relations began to improve. China’s relations with the new
Russian Federation continued to grow after the Cold War. In 1991,
the Sino-Russian Border Agreement was signed apportioning
territory that became controversial during the Sino-Soviet border
conflict during the Cold War period. In 1992, Russian President
Boris Yeltsin visited China, and signed economic and defence
agreements with China. After Gorbachev’s visit to China in 1989,
leaders of the two states continued to pay mutual visits. These top-
level visits helped to normalize relations between the two
countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin visited China in 2000,
and signed three important economic and trade agreements with
China. In 2001, Russia emerged as the top supplier of defence
equipments to China. Also in 2001, the close relations between the
two countries were formalized with the ‘Treaty of Good
Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation’, a twenty-year
strategic, economic, and arguably, an implicit military, treaty.
Before this treaty was signed, the two countries joined Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to form the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), a multilateral forum for
economic and strategic cooperation.

The Russian government also agreed to transfer Tarabarov Island

as well as one half of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island to China in 2004,
ending a long-standing border dispute between the two countries.
The transfer had been ratified by both the Chinese and the Russian
parliaments. The official transfer ceremony was held on 14 October
2008. This event was a big leap forward in bilateral relationship
between China and Russia, and could act as a confidence-building
measure in the future. Two-way trade between the two countries
also registered significant growth in recent times. Sino-Russian
trade volume was US $33.4 billion in 2006. It reached a healthy
US $56.8 billion in 2008. During his visit to Russia in 2007,
Chinese President Hu Jin Tao told Russian journalists that he was
very optimistic about bilateral trade reaching US $80 billion by
2010.12 Russian President Dimitry Medvedev also expressed similar
hopes during his state visit to China in 2008.13 Although the total
volume of present China-Russia trade is not as large as the volume
of Sino-American trade, it is encouraging to note that China-Russia
two-way trade has gained momentum after the Cold War. It
appears from the analyses made here that both countries are now
eager to forge strong economic and political relations in a changed
international order after the Cold War.

China also improved its relations with Japan, a close neighbour

and an economic giant, after the Cold War. Under the SME, China
allowed Japanese companies to do business in the country. This
Chinese gesture helped to ease tensions between the two Asian
neighbours. In 1992, Japanese Emperor Akihito visited China. This
was the first visit to China by any Japanese Emperor after the
Second World War. Naturally, this visit aroused great interests in
the two countries and helped to improve relations. In 1993, Japan’s
erstwhile Prime Minister Hosokawa expressed regrets on behalf of
his people for Japan’s aggression over China during the Second
World War. His regrets softened Chinese sentiments towards
Japan. The two states are now politically and economically very
close. Top-level mutual visits by the leaders of the two states are
taking place regularly. In 2006, Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of
Japan, visited China. During his talks with the Chinese leaders,
Abe stressed on cooperation in bilateral trade and investment.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Japan in 2007 and held talks
on various areas of cooperation between the two states. Chinese
Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi visited Japan in November 2009 and
met Japanese leaders. Japan’s Foreign Minister Okada welcomed
Yang on his official visit to Japan, and stated that Japan and China
had engaged in dialogues on a variety of issues between their
counterparts and that he would like to further promote active
cooperation not only in bilateral relationship but also in regional
and global issues. As mentioned earlier, Japan had emerged as the
second largest trade partner of China in 2008 with a total trade
volume of US $266.8 billion.14 Clearly, mutual economic interests
had paid dividends in Sino-Japanese bilateral relations which
improved significantly after the Cold War.

China also endeavoured to improve its relations with the ASEAN,

the regional organization with strong economic credentials. China
is an important part of the ASEAN + 3 mechanism that also
includes Japan and South Korea as non-members of the ASEAN.
China and the ASEAN now hold regular summits, also known as
the 10 + 1 mechanism. On 24 October 2009, the Twelfth China-
ASEAN Summit (10 + 1) was held in Hua Hin, Thailand. Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao and the leaders of ASEAN-countries attended
the summit. The two sides reviewed the joint efforts to tackle the
international financial crisis and other challenges faced by the two
sides over the past one year, expressed their will to forge
cooperation and seek common development, and reached broad
consensus on deepening comprehensive cooperation. The China-
ASEAN Free Trade Area (FTA), to be completed by 2010, would
become another important milestone in the history of relations
between the two sides. The current relationship between China and
the ASEAN is featured by stronger mutual trust, closer ties in
different areas, and the will to work for peace and security in the
Asia Pacific region. China has also enhanced its cooperation with
the European Union. China’s relations with EU were established in
1975, and are currently guided by the 1985 EU-China Trade and
Cooperation Agreement. At present, apart from regular political,
trade and economic dialogue meetings between China and the EU,
there are over twenty-four sectoral dialogues and agreements,
ranging from environmental protection to industrial policy, to
education and culture. The Twelfth EU-China Summit took place
in Nanjing, China, on 30 November 2009. The joint statement
issued after the summit acknowledged the role played by EU and
China in fostering peace and harmony in the world, and called for
increasing cooperation between the EU and China in the areas of
trade, security, environment, education and culture. As a group,
the EU emerged as the largest trade partner of China in 2008.
China’s relations with the developing nations of Asia, Africa and
Latin America also improved after the Cold War in an atmosphere
of free market economy and changed political calculations. China
is helping many developing states to improve their industrial and
social infrastructure through economic and technological
assistance. On the whole, an economically resurgent China is now
playing the role of an important actor in world politics after the
Cold War.

China-India Relations After the Cold War

Two years after India gained independence in 1947, the People’s

Republic of China emerged as a new socialist country in Asia.
Therefore, the modern Indian state and the new socialist state in
China began their journey almost simultaneously. Initially, the two
big Asian neighbours shared a cordial relationship among
themselves. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India,
welcomed the creation of a socialist China as a victory in the
struggle against imperialism and colonialism. Nehru’s socialist
leanings encouraged him to establish close connections with China.
China reciprocated by sending its leader Zhou Enlai to India, and
the two countries declared that their friendship would be guided by
the ‘Panchsheel’ (five principles) which essentially called for
mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity
and the policy of non-interference. In 1955, China joined the
conference of Afro-Asian states in Bandung, and supported the
endeavour of these states to remain non-aligned in a sharply
divided bipolar world perpetuated by the Cold War. India hailed
the Chinese stance in Bandung.

The bonhomie, however, did not last long. By the late 1950s,
differences over border issues and Tibet’s accession to China
emerged between the two states. Both China and India accused
each other of illegal occupation of territory. China further alleged
that India was instigating the separatist Tibetans by giving shelter
to the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan religious leader. From 1957, border
skirmishes between the armies of the two states began. The two
states went to war in 1962, in which China won convincingly.
China’s victory in this war with India helped to fulfill, to some
extent, a few political designs of China. These were: (1) to teach
India a lesson on the issue of Tibet; (2) to nullify the Indian
position on the border issue; (3) to scuttle India’s desire for
leadership of the third world; and (4) to harm Nehru’s image as a
global leader. After the 1962 war, diplomatic relations were cut off,
and the two states distanced themselves from each other. As a
consequence, during the 1960s and the 1970s, Sino-Indian
relations remained very low. Ambassadorial relations between
them were restored in 1979, after the visit of the Indian Foreign
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to China that year; but bilateral
relations did not improve much after the visit, the first top-level
visit by any leader of the two countries since the war of 1962.

In 1981, China’s Foreign Minister Huang Hua visited India. It was

decided during Hua’s visit that China and India would resume
talks to resolve border problems. Accordingly, seven rounds of
talks were held between the two countries from 1981 to 1987 in
New Delhi and Beijing. But due to the inflexible attitude of both
states, the talks failed. Sino-Indian relations did not improve till
the late 1980s. With Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to
China in 1988, bilateral relations started getting back to normalcy.
It was decided during this visit that the two states would form
Joint Working Groups (JWGs) to continue dialogues to resolve
outstanding border issues. The annual meeting of the groups
would take place alternately in the capital cities of the two states.
These groups were successful in reducing tension in the border
areas. For instance, after an agreement reached in the JWG
meeting in 1993, the two states reduced troops in the border areas.
As a result, tensions subsided along the 4,000 km border between
the two countries. After the JWG meeting in 1996, China and India
announced a series of confidence-building measures to restore
peace in border areas. Further, in the eleventh meeting of the
JWGs in 1999, the two states agreed to work for regional peace and
security and reduction of nuclear weapons, alongside border
problems. Till 2002, the JWG met fourteen times in Beijing and
New Delhi, and proved to be a very useful and successful
mechanism for bilateral talks. Apart from the creation of the JWG,
the two states also signed important agreements on cooperation in
civil aviation, exchange of technology, and cultural delegations.
Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China helped to normalize relations between
the two Asian neighbours. It also paved the way for further top-
level reciprocal visits by the leaders of the two states.

Chinese Premier Li Peng visited New Delhi in December 1991.

Peng was the first Chinese Prime Minister to visit India in thirty-
seven years after Zhou Enlai visited India in 1954. It was also the
first top-level visit from China after the Cold War. Three important
agreements were signed during Peng’s visit: resuming border
trade; cooperation in space research; and opening of consulate
offices in Mumbai and Shanghai. Peng’s visit was hailed as a
success by the media in the two countries. Indian Prime Minister
Narasimha Rao visited China in 1993. During his visit, Rao and the
Chinese leaders agreed to reduce tension and restore peace along
the LAC (Line of Actual Control). An Expert Committee comprising
diplomats and military personnel from the two countries was also
formed to assist the JWG in bilateral talks. In 1992, President of
India R. Venkataraman visited China, while Indian Vice President
K. R. Narayanan paid an official visit to China in 1994. From the
Chinese side, Li Ruihan, a top leader of the CCP, visited India in
1993, and the Chairman of the National Peoples’ Congress (NPC)
Qiao Shi visited India in 1995. Since high-level visits are always
important in bilateral relations, these reciprocal visits helped to
improve Sino-Indian relations after the Cold War.

Chinese President Jiang Zemin paid a very successful visit to India

in 1996. His was the first-ever visit to India by a Chinese President.
Four important agreements were signed between the two countries
during his visit. These were: (1) agreement on confidence-building
measures in the military along the LAC; (2) agreement concerning
the maintenance of the consulate office of India in the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region in the PRC; (3) agreement on
coopeartion for combating illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances and other crimes; and (4) agreement
between the two countries on maritime support. The visit initiated
a process of cooperation between the two countries in new and
newer areas. In April 1998, General Fu Quanyon, Chief of the
Chinese Army, came to India and met senior Indian leaders,
including Prime Minister Vajpayee, to discuss defence and security
issues concerning the two states. India’s Foreign Minister Jaswant
Singh visited China in June 1999 to discuss bilateral issues. So
there was a spurt of high-level visits between India and China
throughout the 1990s. The two neighbours shed many of their
differences in this decade, and endeavoured to forge an amicable
relationship between them. The effort continued into the new
century with Indian President K. R. Narayanan’s official visit to
China in May 2000, and the visit of Li Peng, Chairman of the
Standing Committee of the NPC, to India in January 2001.

Two-way high-level visits continued, showing improvements in

bilateral relations, and the Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji came to
India in January 2002. Agreements on trade, science and
technology, and environment were signed during Rongji’s visit. In
June 2003, Atal Behari Vajpayee visited China again, this time as
the Prime Minister of India. Vajpayee met President Hu Jintao,
Premier Wen Jiabao and other Chinese leaders during his stay in
China. The two states agreed to strengthen mechanisms for
bilateral cooperation, and decided to create Joint Study Groups
(JSGs) consisting of experts from the two nations to explore trade
and business opportunities. It was also decided during Vajpayee’s
visit that the defence ministers of China and India would exchange
regular visits to monitor security issues, including border
problems.

Wen Jiabao paid a reciprocal visit to India in April 2005 and met
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other Indian leaders. During
his visit, the two sides issued a joint statement, establishing a
‘Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity’.
Chinese President Hu Jintao visited India in November 2006.
India and China issued a joint declaration, outlining a ten-point
strategy to intensify cooperation in all areas and to give greater
strength to strategic and cooperative partnership between India
and China. Manmohan Singh visited China in January 2008. A
joint document entitled ‘A Shared Vision for the 21st Century of the
Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China’ was issued
during the visit, highlighting common positions on various
international and bilateral issues. Prime Minister Singh visited
China again in October 2008 to participate in the Seventh Asia-
Europe Summit held in Beijing on 24–25 October. India and China
have stepped up functional cooperation in all areas. The two
foreign ministries have instituted dialogue mechanisms on issues
relating to counter-terrorism, policy planning and security, besides
strategic dialogue and regular consultations. There are also close
cooperation in areas as diverse as water resources, judiciary,
science and technology, audit, personnel, finance, and
labour.15 India and China are now also parts of important
multilateral groupings like the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
and the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) which try to
protect the interests of group members in other international
political, economic, environmental or trade forums. This reflects
the desire of the two states to work more closely in bilateral and
multilateral mechanisms.

A major area of satisfaction in bilateral relations is the increasing

trade volume between the two countries. China-India trade, which
totalled US $13.6 billion in 2004, rose to US $51.8 billion in
2008.16 At this pace, two-way trade is expected to cross US $65
billion in 2010. China is already a leading trade partner of India.
But there is ample scope for radical improvement in bilateral trade.
In 2008, the total volume of China-India trade constituted less
than 2 per cent of total Chinese trade, and less than 6 per cent of
total Indian trade. This grey area in bilateral trade requires
attention, because these two Asian neighbours are the most
developing economies in the world today. They must pay more
attention to each other in terms of trade. However, the pace of
growth in bilateral trade since 2004 may be viewed with optimism.

Despite noteworthy improvement in China-India relations during

the post Cold War period, it would not be wrong to mention that
the relationship suffers from lack of trust. Border problems are
persistent irritants in bilateral relations, with occasional claims on
each other’s territories. The Tibet issue often comes back to affect
the relationship. For instance, the visit of Dalai Lama to India in
November 2009 drew Chinese criticisms about India’s ‘designs’.
Moreover, India fears that a militarily and economically strong
China might prove to be a security threat for it. India cited the
presence of a nuclear neighbour (China) as a security threat and as
the justification for Pokhran II in May 1998. Chinese security-
related supplies to Pakistan further exacerbate Indian schism.
Overall, the element of mistrust prevails in China-India relations at
this moment. Sincere political will of the leaders of the two Asian
neighbours can only do away with this mistrust. It may be hoped
that in an age of economic diplomacy, the political elites of the two
states would sincerely try to bring in the all-important element of
trust in China-India relations.

PART IV

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The Post-Cold War Dilemma

The Russian Federation, the largest country in the contemporary

world, emerged after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991.
It is one of the fifteen independent countries created from the
former Soviet Union. Today’s Russian Federation (henceforth, only
Russia) is twice as big as the US and China, and six times bigger
than India. Russia has retained permanent seat in the UN Security
Council, and inherited a large portion of nuclear arsenals from the
Soviet Union. Russia is now an emergent economy, a multiparty
democracy, and very rich in energy resources. So it is believed to
have all the capabilities of emerging as an important power in
world politics. The present foreign policy of Russia is geared to
take up the ‘big power’ role in international politics. After the end
of the Cold War, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in
1991, Russia entered the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) along with eleven other former Soviet republics. However,
immediately after the Cold War, it was struggling to find its proper
role in world politics. During this period (1991–99), it concentrated
more on domestic political and economic reconstruction, and
pursued a modest, not-too-ambitious foreign policy, unlike the
former Soviet Union.

The Yeltsin Period: An Incoherent Beginning

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin was the first post-Cold War President of

Russia. The Yeltsin administration had to give more time to build
the ‘new look’ Russian Federation, which was passing through a
transitional phase after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Yeltsin tried to give a new dimension to Russian foreign policy as
he made major departures from the preceding Gorbachev era. In
early 1992, Russian Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev announced
that Russian foreign policy would differ from foreign policy under
Gorbachev’s ‘New Thinking’ because now democratic principles
would drive it instead of the earlier ‘socialist’ principles. These new
democratic principles would give Russia the opportunity to engage
itself in the global peace process in a new international order after
the Cold War. Kozyrev also emphasized that the basis for the new
foreign policy would be Russia’s national interests rather than the
so-called class interests of the workers of the world that
theoretically dominated Soviet foreign policy for a long time. For
two years (1992–93), Russian foreign policy was generally low key
and conciliatory towards the West with endorsement of many
Western positions in world politics. Pressing domestic problems
faced by the Yeltsin government were determining factors behind
this ‘low key’ foreign policy.

But this departure from the traditional socialist policies, and

conciliatory attitude of the Yeltsin government towards the West,
raised severe public debates. Ultranationalists and communists
criticized the new foreign policy as detrimental to Russian national
interests. Some of them argued that Russia should not follow a
low-key foreign policy with a ‘soft’ attitude towards the West.
Foreign policy issues, along with other pressing domestic
problems, were troubling the Yeltsin government immediately
after the end of the Cold War. In response, the Yeltsin government
came up with a comprehensive foreign policy document in 1993 to
allay criticisms that the government’s initial foreign policy
measures were sketchy and lacked imagination. This document,
approved by the Russian Parliament in April 1993 and named as
the ‘Foreign Policy Concept’, was the first major official foreign
policy document of the Russian Federation.

The 1993 Foreign Policy Concept (FPC) declared Russia as a great

power with several foreign policy priorities. These priorities were:
(1) protecting the sovereignty and unity of the state, with special
emphasis on border stability; (2) ensuring national security
through diplomacy; (3) providing favourable external conditions
for democratic reforms in Russia; (4) mobilizing international
assistance for the establishment of a Russian market economy and
assisting Russian exporters; (5) protecting the rights of Russians
abroad; (6) furthering integration of the CIS and pursuing friendly
relations with other neighbouring and nearby states, including
those in Central Europe; (7) continuing to build friendly relations
with all other countries; and (8) ensuring Russia an active role as a
great power. The FPC also called for enhanced ties with Asia-
Pacific countries to balance relations with the West. Through the
FPC, the Yeltsin government placed greater emphasis on the
protection of Russia’s vital interests. The FPC of 1993 was Yeltsin’s
answer to his critics and an attempt to place Russia as a great
power in the new international order. It also refrained from
pursuing open pro-Western policies.

Yeltsin was President of Russia for two terms: the first from 1991 to
1996; and the second from 1996 to 1999. During his first term in
office, Yeltsin was rather unsure about the role Russia would take
in international politics. He began in 1991 with a conciliatory
foreign policy that manifested a soft attitude towards the US and
the West; but soon changed his position—as the FPC of 1993
makes evident—under increasing criticism from his rivals in
Russian politics. From 1993–94, he started to espouse Russian
nationalism and began to talk in terms of Russia as a great power.
In his first State of the Federation Address to the Russian
Parliament in February 1994, Yeltsin noted that as a great country,
Russia was capable of preventing any global war, cold or hot, and
Russia would also prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. What is worth notable here is Yeltsin’s emphasis on
Russia as the single main actor to prevent future global wars.
Through his reference to the possibility of global war, Yeltsin tried
to appease the Russian military and other conservatives within
Russia that the US and the West still remained a threat. He also
opposed the expansion of the NATO to include Central European
states leaving out Russia. He put emphasis on making the CIS an
economic union with a common market and a common security
system with guarantees on human rights. He warned that Russia
would not tolerate any harm to its national interests.

The nationalist rhetoric of 1993–94 mellowed down in favour of

conciliatory policies again in 1995–96. In his State of the
Federation Address of February 1995, Yeltsin highlighted a
cooperative and conciliatory foreign policy for Russia. He outlined
Russia’s cooperation with the Group of Seven (G-7) industrialized
states, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), the UN, and the NATO. He announced Russia’s sincere
intention to adhere to arms control agreements and hinted at
possible reductions in Russian armed forces. Yeltsin, however,
continued with Russia’s objection to the enlargement of the NATO
and called it a threat to European security. He also announced that
in 1995–96 Russian foreign policy would be peaceful and
committed to the principle of ‘real partnership in all directions’
with the US, Europe, China, India, Japan and Latin America.
Russian foreign policy, Yeltsin declared in his address, would be
guided by a ‘balance of interests’ with respect to the CIS and the
Western world including the United States.

During his second term in office, Yeltsin was troubled by recurring

health problems, domestic political turmoil, more intense
separatist movements in Chechnya, and a weak economy. As a
result, he had to continue with conciliatory policies towards the
West with occasional outbursts of Russian nationalism. For
instance, during the 1999 Kosovo war, he strongly opposed NATO
military operations and warned of possible Russian intervention
and a resumption of the Cold War, if NATO deployed ground
troops to Kosovo. He also had differences of opinion with the
American President Bill Clinton over Moscow’s military
intervention in Chechnya which, according to the American
President, resulted in huge civilian casualties. Clinton requested
him to stop military operations in Chechnya, which he refused. But
at the same time Yeltsin relied heavily on the Americans and US-
supported financial organizations for the reconstruction of the
Russian economy. He sought help from the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and from the US Treasury
Department for Russia’s economic revival. During his presidency,
Russia received more than US $40 billion from international
financial organizations. His government was also accused of
embezzling these funds, and other financial corruptions.

Yeltsin’s foreign policy, like his domestic policies, was marked by

inconsistency and incoherence. Russia was searching for its proper
identity and place in world politics during the Yeltsin presidency.
Although it inherited the legacy of the former Soviet Union, Russia
was unsure of its status in the new international order. It wished to
bask in the superpower glory, and wanted to play a big-power role
in international politics. However, the world at large, and Russia
itself, was sceptic about its big-power status in international
politics. With a struggling economy, a nascent and weak
democracy, pressing domestic problems, and an ailing but
obstinate President, Russia’s transition from a socialist political
system to a liberal democracy was arduous. It had to take
conciliatory policies towards the West, yet wanted to pursue big-
power ambitions. These incoherent policies did not help Russia to
assume the leading role that it wished to follow in international
politics during the Yeltsin period.

The Putin Presidency: A Resurgent Russia

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin assumed Russian Presidency in

2000, and served two tenures; first during 2000–04, and second,
during 2004–08, lasting till May 2008. Putin was a more assertive
leader than Yeltsin. This observation could be substantiated by the
progress of the Russian economy, considerable domestic political
stability, and a more focused and assertive foreign policy. During
Putin’s eight years as the President, Russian economy grew at an
average 7 per cent, making Russia the seventh largest economy in
the world in terms of purchasing power. The country’s GDP (Gross
Domestic Product) increased six-fold between 2000 and 2008, and
the poverty level (people living below the poverty line) decreased
from 30 per cent in 2000 to 14 per cent in 2008. Putin enjoyed a
very high approval rating from the Russians, an average of 65 per
cent during his presidency, the highest enjoyed by any leader in the
world (as per public opinion surveys), because he was credited with
bringing political stability to the country and restoring rule of law.
In international affairs, Putin firmly placed Russia as a leading
state and earned respect for it; a dream that his predecessor Yeltsin
nurtured, but failed to achieve. This was possible through an
assertive foreign policy backed by a resurgent economy. During his
presidency, Russia emerged as an able competitor to the US and
Europe.

The theoretical foundation of Putin’s foreign policy was laid in the

‘Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation’ (FPCRF),
approved and issued by the President on 28 June 2000. This
sixteen-page document clearly stated the foreign policy objectives
of the Putin government, and Russia’s priorities in the new
international order in the twenty-first century. Section 2 of the
FPCRF, entitled ‘The Modern World and the Foreign Policy of the
Russian Federation’, stated:

There is a growing trend towards the establishment

of a unipolar structure of the world with the
economic and power domination of the United
States. In solving principal questions of
international security, the stakes are being placed
on western institutions and forums of limited
composition, and on weakening the role of the U.N.
Security Council. The strategy of unilateral actions
can destabilize the international situation, provoke
tensions and the arms race, aggravate interstate
contradictions, national and religious strife.…
Russia shall seek to achieve a multi-polar system of
international relations that really reflects the
diversity of the modem world with its great variety
of interests.
Clearly, the pronouncements are assertive. By naming the US as
the power wishing to perpetuate its dominance in international
affairs, Putin’s FPCRF denounced such tendencies and said that
Russia was in favour of a multipolar world. These pronouncements
sounded like resumption of the Cold War by the Putin
administration, although it was proved later on that Putin was not
interested in another Cold War; rather he wanted Russia to be
strong and resilient, both in economic and security terms.

Putin’s foreign policy was forthright, yet moderate. Russia

conveyed its opinions clearly without antagonizing other important
powers. For instance, Putin condemned American attacks on Iraq
in 2003 and called for removing economic sanctions from Iraq. But
his views did not affect US-Russia relations. The Russian President
had very good personal equations with George W. Bush (Jr). In
fact, Bush waived economic sanctions on Iraq after the war was
over in 2003. Before the Iraq war, Putin allowed coalition military
bases in Central Asia during the US-led military operations in
Afghanistan in 2001, despite objections from the ultranationalists
in Russia. This instance showed that Putin’s opposition to the US
was issue-based, and not chronic. He signed the very important
‘Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty’ (SORT; also known as the
‘Moscow Treaty’) with Bush in Moscow on 26 May 2002.
According to the treaty, both the US and Russia would reduce
1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear warheads each. The
SORT, a significant step towards nonproliferation, would expire on
31 December 2012.

The moderate but assertive foreign policy pursued by the Putin

government earned respect for Russia from the international
community. Putin objected to Kosovo’s plan for separation from
Serbia, and warned the US and European powers not to encourage
Kosovo’s cessation. At the same time, he was credited with
improving Russia’s relations with the European Union (EU). He
opposed NATO’s expansion programme, but also formed the
NATO-Russia Council. These instances revealed stark pragmatism
in Putin’s foreign policy. He understood correctly that Russia
would require economic help from the US and other European
powers. Therefore, he did not blindly oppose these nations to
appease Russian nationalists. Yet he never missed any chance to
condemn American ‘dominance’ in international politics, and
projected the image of a constructive critique of the US in
international relations. This moderate foreign policy yielded
tremendous results for Russia.

During his eight years as the President of Russia, Putin’s foreign

policy achievements were significant. Russia regained its status as
a leading global power during the presidency of Putin. Sustained
economic growth, coupled with assertive domestic and foreign
policies, led to Russia’s enhanced international prestige and
acceptance. It had emerged as the world’s biggest energy base,
producing more oil than Saudi Arabia. Almost the whole of Europe
is dependent on the export of natural gas from Russia. The growing
arms and commodity items exports have made Russia the third
largest reserve of foreign exchange in the world. Russia is now
included in the group of the most rapidly developing emerging
economies, the BRIC. Russia under Putin formed several
multilateral forums like the Sanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), NATO-Russia Council, Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO), Quartet on the Middle East (QME) and the
EU-Russia Common Spaces, to increase its presence and
importance in international politics. It also continued with its
strong presence in other important international forums like the
UNO, CIS, WTO, G-8, OSCE, and the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation). Russia’s active involvement in all these forums
indicated Putin’s desire to achieve a big-power role for his country.

Vladimir Putin faced foreign policy challenges as well. Anti-

Russian regimes in neighbouring states like Kyrgyzstan, Georgia
and Ukraine emerged for some time to threaten Russia’s security
and its foreign policy initiatives in neighbouring countries. But
Putin successfully met these challenges and made Russian position
secure in Central Asia and East Europe. A failed ‘tulip revolution’
initiated by anti-Russian groups in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 turned into
a nightmare for the local population. The failure, accompanied by
killings and chaos in the capital and other cities, frightened the
local elites and population; but at the same time it strengthened
Russia’s position in Central Asia. Earlier, the much publicized ‘rose
revolution’ in Georgia in 2003, and the ‘orange revolution’ in
Ukraine in 2004–05 (these were also known as ‘colour
revolutions’) that destabilized Russia-friendly governments in
these countries, lost their sheen and gradually the political elite
close to Russia came to power in Georgia and Ukraine. These failed
revolutions in effect ensured the success of Putin’s foreign policy in
neighbouring states. Putin warned the US and West European
powers not to meddle in Georgia and Ukraine, and the situation
never went out of Russia’s control. The Americans, with limited
strategic interests in Georgia and Ukraine, also restrained
themselves because they did not wish to antagonize Putin due to
increased American political and business interests in Russia.
Putin and his Russia commanded more respect from the
international community compared to Yeltsin and his Russia of the
1990s.

The foreign policy of Putin had its shortcomings as well. Russia,

despite strong economic growth, failed to emerge as a major trade
partner for many of its important neighbours like China, Japan,
and Kazakhstan. With industrial nations like Germany, Italy,
England, and Canada, Russian trade remained insignificant during
the Putin period. Further, Russia’s trade volume with important
regional organizations like the EU and the ASEAN did not assume
significant proportions during the Putin presidency. Russia in
2009–10—when Putin was the Prime Minister and a main figure in
the Medvedev government—seemed to have lost its earlier political
influence in many neighbouring states, especially in Georgia and
Ukraine, with the proliferation of anti-Russian forces in these
states. However, negative points in Putin’s foreign policy are
outweighed by the positive points. Without reviving the Cold War
and significantly antagonizing the West, Putin was very successful
in establishing Russia as an important actor in international
politics.

The Medvedev Presidency

Dimtry Anatolyevich Medvedev took over as the Russian President

on 7 May 2008, after Putin finished his two terms in presidency,
the maximum allowed at a stretch by the Russian Constitution. He
was appointed as the Prime Minister in the new government.
Medvedev was widely known as the person groomed by Putin to
take over the mantle after him. He continued with Putin’s policies
in domestic and foreign affairs, although he often showed sparkles
of his individuality in dealing with internal and external issues.
Unlike Putin, Medvedev was not known in Russian politics as a
person comfortable with foreign policy; he was more a ‘domestic’
politician. He was largely dependent on Putin and the Russian
foreign ministry for external affairs. But he gradually attained
control in foreign policy matters as well.

Like his predecessors, Medvedev also issued a Foreign Policy

Concept (FPC) on 31 July 2008, that outlined foreign policy
priorities of his government. It contained six priority areas that
Russia wished to follow in international relations. These were: (1)
the emergence of a new world order where Russia would work for a
multipolar world instead of a unipolar world; (2) the primacy of
law in international relations; (3) strengthening international
security; (4) international economic and environmental
cooperation; (5) international humanitarian cooperation and
protection of human rights; and (6) information support for
foreign policy activities, by which Russia would demand correct
and accurate information on foreign policy activities pursued by
different states in the world. The FPC of 2008 contained nothing
unique as compared to the FPCRF issued by the Putin government
in 2000. The former also opposed the expansion of the NATO and
called for equitable relationship between Russia and the NATO in
the Russia-NATO Council. It objected to the inclusion of Georgia
and Ukraine in the NATO and the projected expansion till the
borders of Russia. The FPC stated that ‘Russia calls for building a
truly unified Europe without divisive lines through equal
interaction between Russia, the European Union and the United
States. This would strengthen the positions of the Euro-Atlantic
States in global competition’. It also stressed on increasing
cooperation with the CIS, the EU, Japan, China, the two Koreas,
the ASEAN, and several West European, African and Latin
American states.

Medvedev met US President Barack Obama in April 2009 during

the Group of 20 (G-20) Leaders’ Summit in London. The two
presidents issued a joint statement after their bilateral meeting
which was cordial and positive. Medvedev and Obama agreed to
pursue verifiable reductions in their huge nuclear arsenals. By
agreeing to verifiable reductions, Medvedev made a departure
from the earlier Putin administration, which did not go for the
verifiable reduction clause after the SORT, signed in 2002. Both
Medvedev and Obama reiterated their commitment to a nuclear-
weapon-free world, and vowed to work together to achieve the
goal. They underscored the need for enhanced cooperation
between their nations to meet the demands of the new
international order. The statement noted: ‘We, the leaders of
Russia and the United States, are ready to move beyond Cold War
mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between our two
countries… Now it is time to get down to business and translate
our warm words into actual achievements.…’ The tone of the
statement was very positive and underlined the desire of the
Medvedev government to improve relations with the US.

Medvedev, like Putin, continued the policy of economic diplomacy

for Russia. He also used the resurgent Russian economy and
strong energy resources to establish Russia’s position in
international politics. Russia under Medvedev continued as the
largest arms and energy exporter in the world. But Medvedev
gradually came out of the shadow of Putin in foreign and domestic
policy matters, and put the stamp of his own personality in these
areas. For instance, Medvedev wanted the dismantling of a
moribund OSCE in favour of more active security and cooperation
mechanisms for Europe, and proposed a European Security Treaty.
He established a Customs Union with Belarus, and proposed
similar unions with other CIS-countries. Medvedev is no longer
another Putin in a different garb; he is a different mind as well.
Time is not yet ripe to scrutinize the success or failure of
Medvedev’s foreign policy, because he has been in office for nearly
two years (as of March 2010). But Russia under Medvedev is doing
well in economic development and international affairs, although
the process of building a democratic Russia is far from over.

Russia-India Relations After the Cold War

India had strong and friendly bilateral relations with the former
Soviet Union. The Russian Federation, since its formation in 1991,
also developed cordial relations with India. After the end of the
Cold War, the two countries began to think afresh about forging a
close relationship in the backdrop of a new international order.
During the first term of Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia, the
relationship started to take a new shape. It took a while to
consolidate bilateral relations as both Russia and India were new
to the post-Cold War situations. However, the two sides began
working sincerely on bilateral relations from 1992–93. During the
January 1993 visit of Yeltsin to India, the two countries signed
agreements that promised to herald new economic and defence
cooperation between the two states.

A new Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, which replaced the

Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship of 1971, was signed during
Yeltsin’s visit. The new treaty dropped security clauses present in
the 1971 treaty because both India and Russia felt that they were
not necessary in the changed international order. Yeltsin
announced that Russia would provide cryogenic engines for India’s
space programme under a US $350 million deal between the
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Russian space
agency, Glavkosmos. The Russian President expressed strong
support for India’s position on Kashmir. A defense cooperation
agreement aimed at ensuring the continued supply of Russian
arms and spare parts for India’s military, and at promoting the
joint production of defence equipment, was also signed during
Yeltsin’s visit. Prime Minister of India Narasimha Rao and the
Russian President agreed that bilateral trade, which had fallen
drastically during 1991–92, would get a boost following the
resolution of the dispute over India’s debt to Russia. Earlier in May
1992, the two countries decided to abandon the 1978 rupee-rouble
trade agreement in favour of the use of hard currency. Although
the cryogenic engine deal did not materialize, the visit of Yeltsin
helped indeed to set the ball rolling, as it ushered in a new era of
close relationship between India and Russia.

Narasimha Rao visited Russia in July 1994. He and Yeltsin signed

declarations to continue close bilateral cooperation, and supply of
Russian arms and military equipment exports to India. His visit
yielded positive results for India. Apart from ensuring the
continuation of Russian defence-related exports to India, he was
able to restore the sale of cryogenic engines to India, which was
seen as a diplomatic victory in Indian foreign policy circles. In
December 1994, Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin
visited New Delhi to discuss bilateral issues with Indian leaders.
Eight agreements were signed between the two countries during
his visit. These agreements covered military and technical
cooperation from 1995 to 2000, trade, merchant shipping,
promotion and mutual protection of investments, and cooperation
in outer space. The success of Chernomyrdin’s visit was hailed by
the Indian and the Russian media as a return to warmer ties
between the two countries. Regular top-level visits and close
cooperation in different areas of bilateral interest have been
continuing since Chernomyrdin’s visit to India.

The two countries inched closer and enhanced their cooperation at

the turn of the new century. In October 2000, President Valdimir
Putin of Russia visited India. India and Russia signed ten
agreements in all during his visit. The most important agreement
signed personally by Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee and the
Russian President was the declaration on strategic partnership
between the two countries. This declaration was very significant for
the two countries as New Delhi and Moscow instituted an inter-
governmental commission for military-technical cooperation
under the co-chairmanship of the two defence ministers. Both
sides have committed themselves not to participate in any military,
political or other arrangements or armed conflicts threatening
either side. Under the strategic partnership, long-term and
diversified Indo-Russian cooperation would be organised in the
sphere of metallurgy, fuel and energy, information technology and
communications. Defence and military-technical cooperation
arrangements would be put in place in a long-term perspective
with special emphasis on cooperation between defence forces of
the two countries. India and Russia would cooperate in the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy and outer space. Putin assured the
Indian leaders that Russia was willing to share cutting-edge
defence technologies with India—an unprecedented commitment
that went a long way to cement security partnership between the
two states. The other agreements related to increased cooperation
across the spectrum of political, economic, defence, technological
and cultural spheres.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee paid an official visit to Russia

in November 2003. A joint declaration was issued during the visit
and the Indian Prime Minister signed several agreements on
bilateral cooperation with the Russian President in Moscow on 12
November. The agreements covered the spheres of science and
technology, space, earthquake research, expansion of bilateral
trade, and defence supplies. The declaration referred to an
agreement between the two countries on war against terrorism.
Both Vajpayee and Putin affirmed a consistent and
uncompromising approach on tackling terrorist threat. Russia
endorsed the Indian position on resuming a dialogue with
Pakistan, agreeing that an end to cross-border terrorism was
necessary to initiate a purposeful dialogue. The declaration
recommended a concrete and time-bound action plan under the
aegis of the UN for the earliest restoration of democracy and
sovereignty in Iraq. Both leaders also agreed that the role of the
UN should be restored in dealing with problems of peace and
security in the global context. They also agreed, as per the joint
declaration, that all support should be given to the transitional
government in Afghanistan to enable it to emerge as a stable
country free from external interference. India and Russia further
agreed that the future international order should be based on
multi-polarity, and must be determined by collective and
multilateral processes rather than unilateral initiatives. The
declaration also reiterated that closer India-Russia cooperation in
the fields of defence, space, and science and technology would be
intensified and expanded in the near future.

With the Congress Party assuming power in New Delhi in 2004, it

was hoped that India-Russia relations would get another fillip,
considering Congress Party’s traditional preference for Moscow.
Regular top-level visits continued after 2004, along with closer
bilateral cooperation in different areas. The new Indian Prime
Minister, Manmohan Singh, visited Russia in the first week of
December 2005 for the annual summit meeting with the Russian
President, Vladimir Putin. During Singh’s visit, India and Russia
signed some important agreements. These were: (1) agreement on
reciprocal protection of intellectual property rights in military
technical cooperation; (2) space exploration cooperation
agreement; (3) agreement on cooperation in the field of solar
physics and solar terrestrial relationships; (4) agreement on
implementation of programme for military and technical
cooperation till 2010. However, contrary to expectations, the visit
was low-key and yielded little significant results; and compared to
Manmohan’s highly successful visit to the US in July 2005, when
India and the US planned the civil nuclear agreement, his
December 2005 visit to Moscow appeared to be just another
routine diplomatic exercise.

The visit of Dmitry Medvedev, the new Russian President, to India

in December 2008 yielded more positive results. He was the first
world leader to visit India after the 26/11 terrorist attack on
Mumbai. Obviously, terrorism was pushed to the top of the
agenda. The joint declaration, signed by the Russian President and
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urged the international
community to provide all assistance to India to bring to justice the
terrorists who executed attacks on Mumbai. One of the major
achievements of the visit was the new thrust on the proposed Indo-
Russian peaceful nuclear cooperation. Apart from signing an
agreement for construction of four more reactors at the
Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu, where Russia was in the final
stages of building two reactors, both sides expressed their desire to
build additional reactors there, as well as to go for new nuclear
plants elsewhere in India. During Medvedev’s visit, India and
Russia also signed a deal totalling $700 million for Russian nuclear
fuel supply to India. The joint declaration further appealed to the
international community to resolve the Iran issue through peaceful
means, dialogue and negotiations. While requesting all sides for
demonstrating flexibility and restraint, Russia and India upheld
Iran’s right to conduct research, production and use of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the terms of the
NPT and its other international obligations. The Medvedev visit of
December 2008 would be remembered for preparing the
groundwork for the Indo-Russian Civil Nuclear Cooperation
Agreement, signed next year, and also for strengthening defence
ties between the two countries.

Manmoham Singh paid an official visit to Russia in December

2009 for the annual summit meeting with the Russian President.
The landmark civil nuclear cooperation agreement between India
and Russia was signed on 7 December 2009, after talks between
Singh and Medvedev in Moscow. The two leaders, in their joint
statement, described the agreement as ‘pathbreaking’ and
expressed hope that the agreement would deepen and strengthen
the already existing nuclear cooperation between the two
countries. By the terms of the agreement, the Russians would build
twelve to fourteen nuclear reactors in India. The agreement with
Russia was believed to be much more advantageous to India than
the 123 agreements India signed with the US, especially because
the new agreement contained assurances on uninterrupted
supplies of uranium to India for the atomic reactors and on
transfer of nuclear technology. The two sides also signed
agreements on extending their long term military cooperation
programme for another ten years, till 2020. Singh and Medvedev
also discussed regional issues, including the situation in
Afghanistan, in which both the countries have a stake and favoured
a ‘stable and prosperous’ Afghanistan. This visit of Manmohan
Singh was highly successful, considering the positive outcome that
the visit yielded for India.

But grey areas still remain in India-Russia relations. The negligible

volume of bilateral trade is a reminder for concerted actions to be
adopted by both states. In an age of economic diplomacy, India
and Russia have not been able to forge strong economic relations,
despite the fact that the two states are considered as strong
growing economies. The volume of India-Russia trade reached
only $3.41 in 2007–08 (source: Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India. See its report entitled ‘Russian Federation:
Basic Facts’). India-Russia bilateral trade is expected to reach $10
billion by the end of 2010, a meagre amount, considering the rates
of economic growth in these two countries. Russia does not figure
among the top ten trading partners of India, nor does India rank
among the notable trading partners of Russia.

Among the three important segments of bilateral relations—

political, security, and economic— India-Russia ties have
strengthened only in security areas. The two countries have a
strong strategic partnership, as already outlined. The civil nuclear
agreement signed between the two states in 2009 added to their
already strong defence and security relations. The two countries
regularly conduct joint military exercises, and are engaged in
defence and nuclear supplies. Leaving aside this strong security
relationship, in two other areas of bilateral relations—economic
and political—India and Russia have not progressed very far.
Nearly two decades after their economic liberalization, Indo-
Russian trade is painfully low. As far as political relations are
concerned, India does not receive the same kind of support from
Russia on political issues, as it used to get during the Soviet era. On
many occasions, Russia urged India to settle its disputes with
Pakistan without realizing Indian constraints. It even cancelled
defence deals with India under political pressure from the US. It
also believes that India should sign the NPT, and asked India to do
the same on several occasions. During the Yeltsin presidency,
political relations between the two states were weak. Since Putin’s
time, political relations have improved, but require more attention.
Bilateral relations do not follow any fixed pattern. India and
Russia, traditional friends, may again forge strong political
relations if their national interests require them do to so. Economic
relations would definitely look up with time, as both states would
try to add strength to their economies through improved
international trade.

PART V

FOREIGN POLICY OF JAPAN AFTER THE COLD WAR

Japan enjoyed a big-power status in the world from the middle of

the nineteenth century till the Second World War. After its victory
in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, Japan came to be recognized
as a major power, and remained as an important international
actor ever since. Following its defeat in the Second World War, it
lost its status as a great power in military terms, but regained the
status of an economic great power since the 1960s. Today, Japan is
restricted by the provisions of its constitution to develop its
military force; although Japan is a very strong economy—the
second largest in the world after the US in terms of nominal GDP—
and a very active member of the G-8 industrial nations. In 1947,
devastated by the Second World War, Japan adopted a new pacifist
constitution which proclaimed liberal democratic policies. Article 9
of the constitution of 1947 forbids the use of force as a means to
settle international disputes. This article also prohibits Japan from
maintaining an army, navy or air force. The Japan Self Defence
Forces (JSDF), assigned to maintain security of the country, is an
extension of the police force, and do not strictly fall into the
category of an organized military. This unique position of Japan, a
very strong economy but without any substantially recognized
military, makes Japan an ‘unbalanced’ major power in the present
international order.

Japan became an American ally after the Second World War. Its
close strategic connection with the US remained a significant issue
in its foreign policy since the war. A Japan-US Security Treaty was
signed in 1951 at the end of occupation of Japan by the Allied
Forces. This treaty made Japan dependent on the US for the
maintenance of its security. This treaty was replaced by the Treaty
of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the US,
signed in 1960. Under the treaty, both parties assumed an
obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed
attack and to assist each other in case of armed attack on
territories under Japanese administration. Article 6 of the treaty
contained a ‘status of forces agreement’ on the stationing of
American forces in Japan. The Agreed Minutes to the treaty noted
that the Japanese government must be consulted before any major
changes in deployment of US forces in Japan or before the use of
Japanese bases for combat operations other than in defence of
Japan itself. The 1960 US-Japan Security Treaty not only provided
a security cover for Japan, but proved very important to
maintenance of peace and stability in East Asia. This treaty also
helped Japan to develop a very close relationship with the US,
which continues till today. All post-War Japanese governments
relied on a close relationship with the US as the foundation of their
foreign policy and depended on the mutual security treaty for
strategic protection. Today, Japan and the US share strong
political, economic and security relations, and act as close allies in
international affairs.

Japan has not remained dependent on the US alone, but

successfully diversified its foreign relations to develop close
connections with many other states, especially the important ones.
For instance, Japan developed friendly relations with its
neighbours. It signed a peace and friendship treaty with the
People’s Republic of China in 1978. Bilateral relations between the
two neighbours developed rapidly after the treaty was signed. The
Japanese extended significant economic assistance to China in
various modernization projects. Japan has maintained close
economic—but not diplomatic—relations with Taiwan. Today, a
substantially strong bilateral trade relationship exists between the
two states. This policy of strong trade relations, without diplomatic
ties, with Taiwan has in fact helped Japan to build good relations
with China, an important neighbour, and a major power in the
world today. Since 2000, China has emerged as a significant
import and export destination of Japan. With South Korea, Japan
shares strong strategic and economic interests. The ties between
them improved continuously since an exchange of visits by their
political leaders in the mid-1980s. As an American strategic ally,
Japan supports the US and South Korean positions on containing
nuclear activities of North Korea. Japan, the US and South Korea
coordinate closely and consult trilaterally on policies towards
North Korea. Japan strongly supports the American position that
North Korea should sign the NPT, and abide by the rules of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It also supports,
along with South Korea, American policies to freeze North Korean
nuclear programme. Japan’s relationship is stronger with South
Korea than with North Korea. Today Japan has limited commercial
and political ties with North Korea. Due to the North Korean
nuclear programme which Japan sees as a threat to peace and
security in the region, Japan’s normalization of relations with
North Korea received a jolt in the mid-1990s.

Japan’s relationship with the ASEAN is very cordial now. After

initial schism about each other, Japan and the ASEAN established
informal dialogue relations in 1973, which were later formalised in
March 1977 with the convening of the ASEAN-Japan Forum. Since
then Japan-ASEAN relations have been growing to cover
economic, strategic, political, cultural and educational, and
science- and technology-related areas. After the Cold War,
relations between Japan and the ASEAN have been further
strengthened by the signing of the ‘Tokyo Declaration for the
Dynamic and Enduring ASEAN-Japan Partnership in the New
Millennium’, along with the ‘ASEAN-Japan Plan of Action’, at the
ASEAN-Japan Commemorative Summit held in December 2003 in
Tokyo, Japan. The ASEAN and Japan are also closely involved in
different cooperation frameworks such as the ASEAN Plus Three
(APT) process, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the East
Asia Summit (EAS). Japan acceded to the Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia in July 2004 in Jakarta,
Indonesia. This gave impetus to the promotion of peace and
stability in the region. Trade relations between the ASEAN and
Japan have continued to grow and strengthen. The total volume of
trade between the two grew from US $173.1 billion in 2007 to US
$211.4 billion in 2008, an increase of 22.1 per cent. ASEAN exports
to Japan increased by 22.8 per cent from US $85.1 billion in 2007
to US $104.5 billion in 2008. ASEAN imports from Japan for the
same period also grew from US $87.9 billion to US $106.8 billion,
that is, by 21.5 per cent. At present, Japan is the largest trading
partner of the ASEAN with a share of 12.4 per cent of the total
trade of the association.

Japan’s relations with Russia are carrying the hangover of the Cold
War times. Relations are not very cordial due to the inability of
both states to resolve their territorial disputes over four islands in
the Pacific. These islands, known as the Southern Kuriles in Russia
and the Northern Territories in Japan, were seized by the Soviet
Union after it declared war on Japan on 8 August 1945, forcing
about 17,000 Japanese residents to flee. Japan wants to get back
the islands—a demand that the Russians are not going to meet
easily—due to the proximity of these islands to Russian oil regions.
The stalemate prevented conclusion of a peace treaty after the
Second World War, and continued to affect bilateral relations since
that time. The United States supports Japan on the issue of the
Northern Territories and recognizes Japanese sovereignty over the
islands. However, Japan and Russia have made some progress in
developing other aspects of the relationship. For instance,
commercial relations between Japan and Russia have been
growing over the years. Trade between the two states increased
from US $5 billion in 2000 to US $20 billion in 2007, and is
expected to reach US $40 billion by the end of 2010. But the two
countries would need to resolve their territorial disputes to achieve
a stronger relationship.

Beyond its immediate neighbours, Japan has pursued a more

active foreign policy in recent years, recognizing the responsibility
that accompanies its economic strength. It has been successful in
strengthening ties with the Middle East, which provides most of its
oil. Japan is also active in Africa and Latin America and has
extended significant support to development projects in these
regions. It is strongly in favour of UN reforms, and a major
contender for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. For
this purpose, Japan is actively working in tandem with Germany,
India and Brazil, the other aspirants for a permanent seat. Since its
joining the UN in 1956, it has remained intimately involved in UN
activities. Japan contributes 11 per cent of the total UN budget, the
second largest contribution after that of the US. Its relations with
the European Union is very strong. The EU-Japan annual summit
meetings (ASM) constitute elaborate framework for close
cooperation, and cover important areas like foreign policy,
economy, environment, culture, and science and technology. The
eighteenth ASM was held in May 2009 in Prague where the two
sides discussed important bilateral issues like trade and
environmental cooperation. The EU ranks second in Japanese
exports, and third in Japanese imports. Among the twenty-seven
members of the EU, Germany, France and the United Kingdom are
the top three trading partners of Japan. In 2008, the total volume
of EU-Japan trade crossed 125 billion euro. It is expected to cross
150 billion euro by the end of 2010.

After the Cold War, internal political debates over Article 9 of the
constitution of 1947 and Japan’s role in international affairs have
been continuing. The Japan Socialist Party (JSP) and the Japan
Communist Party (JCP) are in favour of scrapping Article 9, and a
more independent role of Japan in international relations. They
believe that the JSDF is unconstitutional and should be
dismantled. However, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) think that Article 9 of the
Constitution of 1947 ensures that Japan plays a peaceful role in
international politics under the security cover of the US. This
peaceful foreign policy has yielded good results for Japan since the
Second World War and should be continued. Throughout the post-
Second World War period, Japan concentrated on economic
growth while generally taking a passive, low-profile role in world
affairs. This policy was highly successful and allowed Japan to
grow as an economic power. Although Japan is capable to present
a strong military backed by nuclear weapons, it is restricted from
doing so by the provisions of Article 9. There is no indication that
Japan might violate Article 9 and emerge as a military power,
because as a strong economic power, it enjoys great attention in
international affairs.

JAPAN-INDIA RELATIONS AFTER THE COLD WAR

Historically, Japan and India shared a close relationship for a long

time. With the introduction of Buddhism in Japan in the sixth
century, exchanges were believed to have started between the two.
Buddhism brought with it shades of Indian culture to Japan and
the process of cultural interactions began. After the Second World
War, the two countries signed a peace treaty and established
diplomatic relations in April 1952. This treaty was one of the first
peace treaties that Japan signed after the war. For some time in the
post-war period, raw materials from India—coal and iron ore in
particular—helped Japan in its industrialization programme, and
in its recovery from the devastation of the war. After Japanese
Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi’s visit to India in 1957, Japan
started providing aid loans to India in 1958, as the first yen aid
extended by the Japanese government. Since 1986, Japan has
remained the largest aid donor of India.

The Japanese Constitution of 1947, known also as the ‘pacifist

constitution’, discouraged Japan from playing an interventionist
role in international politics. Playing a politically passive role
during the Cold War, it was possible for Japan to develop cordial
relations with many states, including India. During this period,
India-Japan relations were cordial, and the latter was the largest
aid donor to India. Japan was one of the few countries in the world
to initiate economic diplomacy as a potential tool in international
relations. The two countries continued to enjoy a cordial
relationship even after the Cold War. But the nuclear tests carried
out in India in 1998 elicited very strong reactions from Japan,
leading it to cancel any kind of economic, strategic or technological
assistance to India for some time. With its horrific experience of
nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second
World War, Japan had been strongly advocating a nuclear-
weapons-free world. In this background, these tests did not go well
with the Japanese political elite; Japan imposed economic
sanctions on India in May 1998. However, with continued
dialogues and diplomatic negotiations between the two countries,
economic sanctions were waived and normalcy was restored in
mutual relations in 2000. Barring this nuclear hiccup, Japan-India
relations remained cordial after the Cold War.

In August 2000, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori’s visit to

India laid the foundation for closer Japan-India relations in the
new century. The two states signed the ‘Global Partnership
between Japan and India in the 21st Century’ during Mori’s visit.
This agreement called for better exchange and cooperation in
economic fields between the two countries, including information
technology (IT). Tokyo and New Delhi further agreed to facilitate
comprehensive dialogue and wider cooperation by way of
increasing regular bilateral visits of important ministers and
leaders of the two states. Since Mori’s visit, annual meetings of top
leaders of the two states have been taking place regularly. India’s
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Japan in December
2001. This was the first visit to Japan by an Indian Prime Minister
after nine and a half years, during which both countries agreed to
cooperate on a variety of issues such as terrorism, Afghanistan, and
disarmament and non-proliferation, both from regional and global
perspectives. After the summit meeting between the two prime
ministers, the ‘Japan-India Joint Declaration’ was announced as a
guideline for future partnership between these two states of Asian.
In July 2002, Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes visited
Japan. 2002 also marked fifty years of political relations between
India and Japan. Ways of strengthening military and political ties,
and improving cooperation on bilateral issues and border
problems between India and Pakistan, were discussed during
Fernandes’ visit to Japan. The Indian Defence Minister held
discussions on bilateral cooperation with his Japanese counterpart
General Nakatani, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi,
and Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi.

Top-level visits, considered as important instruments of bilateral

diplomacy, continued between India and Japan. In April 2005,
Koizumi visited India as Prime Minister of Japan; and Prime
Minister of India Manmohan Singh paid a reciprocal visit to Japan
in December 2006. During this visit, Japan agreed to engage in
discussions with India on civilian nuclear cooperation under
‘appropriate’ international safeguards. Although Japan stopped
short of any direct support to the landmark Indo-US nuclear deal,
it said that international civilian nuclear energy cooperation
should be enhanced through ‘constructive approches’ under
appropriate IAEA safeguards. Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe
visited India in August 2007. During his visit, Abe and Manmohan
Singh agreed to take forward the growing relationship between the
two countries. They agreed that Japan and India shared universal
values of democracy, open society, human rights, rule of law and
market economy, and that the two states also shared common
interests in promoting peace, stability and prosperity in Asia and
the world. Based on this recognition, the two leaders reaffirmed
that the Japan-India partnership is a bilateral relationship with the
largest potential for growth. Following Singh’s visit to Japan in
October 2008, Japan and India signed the ‘Joint Statement on the
Advancement of the Strategic and Global Partnership between
Japan and India’. This statement aimed at promoting cooperation
in a wide range of fields such as politics, economy, environmental
protection, energy security, and climate change. The ‘Joint
Declaration on Security Cooperation between Japan and India’ was
also signed during the visit to strengthen security cooperation
between the two countries.

Prime Minister of Japan Yukio Hatoyama visited India in

December 2009 as part of the annual bilateral summit meetings.
The joint statement issued after the summit between Hatoyama
and Manmohan Singh focussed on different areas of bilateral
cooperation. According to the statement, the two prime ministers
took note of the status of the Economic Partnership Agreement
(EPA)/Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)
negotiations, with a view to conclude a mutually beneficial
agreement at the earliest. They hoped that economic relations
between India and Japan would develop further after the
conclusion of the EPA/CEPA. They shared the view that Japanese
Official Development Assistance (ODA) would continue to play a
significant role in alleviation of India’s poverty, economic and
social infrastructure development, and human resource
development. The two prime ministers reaffirmed their
commitment to realize a comprehensive reform of the UN Security
Council, and vowed to continue with their cooperation with the G-
4 and other like-minded countries in this regard. The two prime
ministers re-affirmed their resolve to work together in the
framework of regional cooperation, and the Indian Prime Minister
lauded the sincere initiative taken by Prime Minister Hatoyama for
an East Asian community.

Japan-India relations have vast potential for significant growth.

But this potential has not been realized to its full till date. Japan is
the second largest economy and India is one of the fastest growing
economies in the world. But Japan-India economic relations are
not very strong. Bilateral trade is slated to be approximately US
$14 billion by the end of 2010,17 which is not a very desirable figure.
India accounts for less than 2 per cent of the total trade of Japan.
Japan-India trade constitutes less than 2.5 per cent of total global
trade of India18. India is neither a major export destination for
Japan, nor a great source for imports. Japanese FDI (foreign direct
investment) to India is insignificant compared to total Japanese
FDI abroad. Between 1991 and 2010, Japanese FDI inflows to
India constituted less than US $5 billion19, not a very happy figure
again. Although India is a major recipient of Japanese ODA, trade
relations between the two countries have vast scope for
improvement. Japan is a strong critic of India’s nuclear
programmes, and supports the view that India should sign the
NPT. However, the two sides are engaged in intense cooperation in
the East Asian Summit and the G-4 apart from bilateral
cooperation in different areas. But these two democracies must
come more closer to achieve real engagement that may go a long
way to impact regional and global politics.

PART VI

FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND AFTER THE COLD WAR

England enjoyed great-power status in international politics for a

long time, from the early sixteenth century to the end of the
Second World War. After the war, England’s powers were
diminished because its economy was hit hard due to the war; and
its colonies all over the world became free of British control,
depriving it of essential resources to sustain its economy. In
comparison, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as
strong economic and military superpowers after the Second World
War, relegating England to a lesser-power status in international
politics. British economy and foreign policy became largely
dependent on the US, its ally before and after the war. This
dependence continued during the Cold War and also thereafter. All
the important bases of British power for centuries actually started
eroding before the Second World War, leaving Britain to remain
satisfied with a medium-power status today.

Britain rose to great-power status from the early sixteenth century

due to its five strengths: geography, sea power, trade, imperial
interests, and balance of power. For a long time, British diplomacy
depended heavily on these factors to establish Britain’s supremacy
in world politics. Of these five ‘strengths’, imperial interests and
balance of power ended with the Second World War. The vast
British empire, in the form of colonies in almost every part of the
world, went out of British control after the war. For almost three
and a half centuries Britain did not allow any other power to
dominate in Europe, and maintained a balance of power in the
continent through its command as holder of the balance. But the
system of balance of power also came to an end after the Second
World War with the rise of two superpowers possessing nuclear
weapons. The end of the balance of power system also marked the
end of British political command in the world. With unprecedented
development in the field of science and technology from the early
twentieth century, several European states—such as Italy,
Germany, France, Portugal and Spain—started competing with
England as important sea powers and trading states. So Britain’s
dominance as a sea power and a trading state faced challenges
before the Second World War. The advantage of the British
geography—its ‘insularity’ from the rest of the European continent
— remains valid till today; although in an age of spectacular
progress in military technology, such insularity is not enough to
gurantee total security for Britain. British economy, traditionally
dependent on sea power and trade, found many competitors after
the Second World War—such as Japan, the US, Italy and the USSR
—and lost grounds. All these factors led to Britain’s ‘fall from grace’
as a great power in world politics.

During the Cold War, Britain wished to play the role of an

important actor in international politics, and succeeded to some
extent, with the help of the United States. With common bonds of
heritage, language and culture, Britain and the US remained strong
allies before and after the Second World War. Like the US,
Britain’s post-war foreign policy was preoccupied with the task of
thwarting the ‘advancement’ of communism and the Soviet Union
in the world. Britain was an active member of the West Bloc and
the NATO, and formed an anti-Soviet group with the US and other
West European countries during the Cold War. For this reason,
Britain’s relations with the socialist countries of East Europe,
Africa, Asia and Latin America were distant, and sometimes
antagonistic. But it must be pointed out at this point that Britain
did not always support the US blindly during the Cold War. It
expressed its reservations about the American policy on China, and
put forward the view, as early as in 1950, that trade with China
must be augmented. With impressive and increasing volumes of
Sino-American and Sino-British trade today, Britain’s views
proved right in the long run. Britain also opposed American
policies during the Suez Canal Crisis and the Vietnam War.
Moreover, Britain tried to expand its sphere of influence in the
world, independent of the US, through the Commonwealth. Britain
was able to establish close political, economic, and cultural links
with more than a hundred states in the world through the
commonwealth system. Although the commonwealth is a much
heterogeneous movement now, with lesser British control, it
nevertheless helps British foreign policy to cultivate closer ties with
many states, and has proved to be beneficial for British diplomacy
for a long time. As a permanent member of the Security Council,
Britain played a very important role in international affairs during
the Cold War. In 1979, during the premiership of Margaret
Thatcher, Britain successfully resolved the Rhodesian crisis leading
to the establishment of Zimbabwe. Thatcher, the last Prime
Minister of Britain (1979–90) during the Cold War, also won the
Falklands War against Argentina in 1982 to re-establish British
control over the Falkland islands that Argentina had captured for a
brief period. British victory in the Falklands War reminded the
world that Britain was not a spent force and could preserve its
national interests effectively.

John Major of the Conservative Party was the first post-Cold War
Prime Minister (1990–97) of England. The Major government
pursued a moderate foreign policy for Britain, perhaps appropriate
with the changing international order. Major and his team did not
seek a very proactive role for Britain in the new world order
immediately after the Cold War. However, the first Gulf War in
1991 and the Masstricht Treaty for a revamped European Union
were tough foreign policy challenges for the Major government.
The Major administration attempted to ratify the treaty with stiff
opposition from the Labour Party, and a section of his own
Conservative Party. A nationalistic Major ultimately showed his
disinterest in the policy of a single European currency, opting to
retian the ‘pound sterling’ for Britain. But the Masstricht Treaty
and the issue of a united Europe raised political storms in Britain,
bringing out the shaky position of the Major government on
foreign policy matters. However, Major showed some
determination during the first Gulf War by sending British troops
to defend Kuwait, and by persuading the American President
Geoge Bush (Sr) to support ‘no-fly zones’ in Northern Iraq with a
view to prevent Iraqi aircrafts from flying over the area to attack
rival aircrafts. This policy proved very effective during the first Gulf
War. Major also initiated the Northern Ireland peace process by
opening talks with the provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in
1993. He paved the way for the Belfast Agreement, also known as
the ‘Good Friday Agreement’, between Britain and Northern
Ireland which sought to end London’s direct control over Northern
Ireland. The agreement was finally signed in 1998 after John Major
left office.

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, popularly known as Tony Blair, of

the Labour Party served as British Prime Minister from 1997 to
2007. Unlike John Major, Blair was more assertive in foreign
policy matters. Under him, Britain preferred an ‘interventionist’
role in international politics. During his two terms in office (1997–
2002 and 2002–07), Blair mainly pursued a three-pronged foreign
policy: assertive interventionism; close ties with the US; and
placing of Britain at the helm of European affairs. The Blair
government’s interventionist preferences could be ascertained
from Britain’s active involvement in NATO attacks on Kosovo and
Serbia in 1999 in the wake of ethnic conflicts in these regions. Blair
persuaded the US government of Bill Clinton to attack Kosovo and
Serbia with a view to contain Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian
forces. The Blair administration also made England an active
player in the ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Afghanistan in 2001
and in Iraq in 2003. The British military joined hands, mainly with
its American counterparts, to launch massive attacks on disruptive
forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. In all these operations—Kosovo,
Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq—the Blair government cooperated
closely with the US to achieve its foreign policy goals of making
Britain a principal actor in international politics again. Blair was
an ardent advocate of US-UK partnership to secure and promote
Britain’s national interests. Immediately after taking over as Prime
Minister, Blair declared in a ‘Foreign Policy Speech’ in November
1997: ‘our aim should be to deepen our relationship with the U.S.
at all levels. We are the bridge between the US and Europe. Let us
use it.’20 After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, the Blair
government began to work in close partnership with the US in
counter-terrorism activities. This cooperation became stronger
after suicide bombers attacked civilians in London in 2005. During
his two terms in office, Blair used the policy of maintaining close
rapport with the Americans, the sole superpower in the world, and
engaging them in all major areas of bilateral diplomacy.

The Blair government, with a view to securing a prominent role for

Britain in European affairs, took active interest in matters related
to the European Union. Britain worked hard towards achieving a
European Monetary Union, and the Blair government asked the
British Treasury to assess the possibility of adopting the Euro.
After careful assessment, the government decided to defer the
adoption of euro for Britain when the single currency was
introduced in many countries of Europe in 2002. But it hoped that
the currency would be introduced in Britain in future. The Labour
government also endorsed the Nice Treaty in 2002 which sought to
strengthen the European Union by revamping its internal
structure. Further, it signed the Brussels Reform Treaty in 2007
that wanted to extend the powers of the union. The Belfast
Agreement was initiated by the former John Major government to
bring peace to Northern Ireland. After assuming office, the Blair
government signed this treaty in 1998. This agreement formed a
part of Blair’s policy to brighten England’s image in Europe. In
deference to the Belfast agreement, the Tony Blair government
helped to restore the ‘Stormont’, the Northern Ireland Parliament,
in 2007. During his two tenures, Blair visited almost every part of
Europe—including several areas in East and Central Europe—to
restore Britain’s close ties with these countries which were affected
in many cases by Cold War politics. Blair’s euro-centric policies
helped in many ways to reestablish Britain at the helm of European
politics after the Cold War.

James Gordon Brown of the Labour Party assumed charge as the

Prime Minister of England in June 2007, after Tony Blair resigned
from office. Brown continued with the foreign policy priorities of
the Blair government, seeking closer ties with the US and an active
role in European and international politics. Although Brown was
committed to the Iraq War, he ordered withdrawal of British
combat troops from Iraq in 2008. Wanting to improve relations
with China, he paid an official visit to the country in July 2008.
There he expressed hope that England-China economic relations
would continue to be strong, and the volume of bilateral trade
would touch US $60 billion by the end of 2010. Although British
sympathisers of the Tibetan unrest in 2008 wanted Brown to send
a strong message to China, he could not satisfy them fully as he
attended the closing ceremony of the summer Olympics of 2008 in
Beijing on 24 August 2008. Brown was in favour of building closer
ties with China, a booming economy and an important power in
today’s world politics.

British relations with Russia suffered a setback when the Brown

government expressed support to the people of Georgia during the
South Ossetia War of 2008 between Russia and Georgia. The
British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, visited the Georgian
capital Tbilisi to meet the Georgian President and said that the
British government and people stood in solidarity with the
Georgian people. The opposition party in Britain accused the
Brown government in October 2009, during a Westminster Hall
debate on a ‘frozen relationship’ with Russia that was reminiscent
of the Cold War disengagement between the two countries.
Although Brown met with his Russian counterpart Medvedev twice
in 2009, the relationship appeared far from cordial. With Japan,
the Brown government nurtured a traditionally close relationship,
and further strengthened it. It signed the Lisbon Treaty in
December 2007, which sought to reform the EU by amending the
earlier Masstricht Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty aroused severe
political controversies in Britain, and the opposition Conservative
Party was against signing it. However, the treaty was ratified by the
British Parliament in July 2008, signalling an important foreign
policy victory for the Brown government. However, in the May
2010 General Elections, the Labour Party did not fare well and
Brown resigned. Davis William Donald Cameron, the leader of the
Conservative Party, became the new Prime Minister of Britain on
the basis of a new coalition between the Conservatives and the
Liberal Democratic Party. The Cameron government became the
first coalition government in the UK since the Second World War.
The Cameron Ministry is new in Britain and it will take time to
evaluate its performance.

British foreign policy in the post-Cold War period suffered from a

major dilemma, caused by its close links with the US. Criticism
arose within and outside England that British foreign policy was
nothing but another face of American foreign policy. To remove
this ‘American’ tag, policy planners in Britain had been searching
for a ‘British’ identity in their foreign policy since the end of the
Second World War. But due to several reasons, their policy could
not come out of the American sphere of influence. Demands of
‘realpolitik’, alliance sentiments, advantages of partnership, and
Britain’s incapacity to carry on its international ambitions alone
are some of the reasons for Britain’s dependence on the US in
foreign policy matters. The reliance of three successive Labour
governments (Blair and Brown periods) on the US bears testimony
to such observations. The Blair government faced intense domestic
criticism for its role in Afghanistan and Iraq, for its failure to check
human massacre in Rwanda, Bosnia and Serbia. The opposition
Conservative Party and the media accused it of earning a bad name
for Britain by aligning with the US in military operations across the
world. This criticism forced the Brown government to withdraw
combat troops from Iraq; but due to Britain’s economic and
strategic interests, it also remained heavily dependent on the US.
British foreign policy thus often suffers from an identity crisis, and
it would continue to haunt policy makers in Britain in future.

ENGLAND-INDIA RELATIONS AFTER THE COLD WAR

For over six decades since India’s independence in 1947, relations
between India and England have remained reasonably strong.
History, democracy and shared values have contributed to the
uniqueness of these relations. Much of Indian public life has been
structured around British laws, ideas and values. This includes the
field of education, industry, and the media. Indian political and
legal institutions, constitutional government, free press, civil
service, modern universities and research laboratories have all
been fashioned through British influence. Britain contributed at
various levels in India’s developmental projects after the country
gained independence. But by the late 1980s, India and Britain
began viewing each other as genuine partners, free from the
hangover of the colonial experience. After the Cold War, the
relationship moved beyond culture, curry and cricket, as Britain
became India’s foremost trading partner. In the twenty-first
century, Britain and India are engaged in a meaningful bilateral
relationship mutually beneficial for both states.

The new century heralded close cooperation between the two states
as top-level bilateral visits continued facilitating a multi-faceted
relationship. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited
Britain in November 2001. At a joint press meet with British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, Vajpayee noted bilateral cooperation in the
area of counter-terrorism. He observed that Britain was the first
country to ban six terrorist groups operating in the subcontinent
and thanked the British Prime Minister for this positive action.
Vajpayee told the British press that both Britain and India have
been familiar with the ugly face of terrorism for long before the
incident of 9/11, and they must to go beyond Al-Qaeda in their
global war against terrorism and target all its sponsors, who
finance, train, equip and harbour terrorists. Blair paid a return
official visit to India in January 2002. He was the first British
Prime Minister in twelve years to visit India, although many
important leaders from Britain came to India during this period. In
New Delhi, Blair focussed on the importance of resumption of a
‘comprehensive’ dialogue between India and Pakistan. He opined
that for talks to be meaningful, all terrorist activities should stop.
‘There are two sides to the equation. On the one hand, there has to
be complete rejection of terrorism and an end to support to it in
any form. And then meaningful dialogue can begin,’ Blair told the
media persons in New Delhi. Clearly counter-terrorism agenda got
preference as an agenda in bilateral relations in the aftermath of
the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Britain in

September 2004 and met his British counterpart and other
leaders. During the visit, Blair and Singh signed a joint declaration
entitled ‘India-UK: Towards a New and Dynamic Partnership’,
which envisaged annual summits between prime ministers and
meetings between foreign ministers of the two states. Since 2004,
the prime ministers of Britain and India, as well as their foreign
ministers have been meeting regularly, initiating new chapters in
bilateral relationship. The declaration also outlined areas for future
cooperation in civil nuclear energy, space, defence, counter-
terrorism, economic ties, science and technology, education and
culture. Blair mooted the idea of India joining G-8 discussions. At
his invitation, Manmohan Singh visited England in July 2005 for
the ‘G-8 plus 5’ Gleneagles Summit, where Heads of Government
of five emerging economies (India, China, South Africa, Brazil and
Mexico) were present along with G-8 leaders. This was a good
opportunity for India to get entry in to the ‘rich industrial club’ of
the world.

Tony Blair visited India in September 2005 in his capacity as the

President of the European Union, for the EU-India Summit on 7
September, and also for the second UK-India bilateral summit held
on 8 September in Udaipur, Rajasthan. The two prime ministers
focused on measures to be adopted in trade and investment
exchanges, in the new and promising area of healthcare, and also
in the area of services. They also agreed to intensify cooperation in
areas of science and technology and the knowledge sector, in which
both our countries have special strengths. Several memorandums
of understanding (MOU) and agreements were finalized during the
summit. These related to: (1) cooperation in the area of
hydrocarbons, which is important for energy policies of the two
states; (2) an MOU on sustainable development; (3) an agreement
on intellectual property rights; (4) an agreement on co-production
of films; and (5) a new air services agreement. Blair reaffirmed his
commitment to India’s candidature for the permanent
membership of the expanded UN Security Council. Singh told him
that the Government of India had decided to create a chair named
after Jawaharlal Nehru at Cambridge University. He also
welcomed Blair’s initiatives regarding education, that aimed at
more student exchanges and better academic relationships
between the two nations at the university level. Prime Minister
Singh visited Britain again in October 2006 for the third UK-India
annual summit.

The fourth UK-India annual summit was held in New Delhi in

January 2008, during the visit of the British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown. After the summit, the two sides issued a joint
statement on India-UK Strategic Partnership. The two sides also
agreed to cooperate in developing collaboration between small and
medium enterprises, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. It was
agreed to establish an Education Forum to work towards an early
conclusion of an educational partnership agreement and to enter
into an MOU on an Indo-UK Higher Education Leadership
Development Programme to develop leadership skills in higher
education. The two prime ministers also agreed to promote
cooperation in civil nuclear energy and would work towards a
bilateral agreement for this purpose. Gordon Brown informed
Manmohan Singh that Britain supports the India-US civil nuclear
cooperation initiative.

British Foreign Minister David Miliband paid a three-day official

visit to India in January 2009. His visit was marked by controversy
as he linked terrorism to the ‘unresolved’ problem of Jammu and
Kashmir. The Indian Foreign Ministry expressed its reservations
over Miliband’s views and said that India did not need unsolicited
advice on internal issues in India such as that of Jammu and
Kashmir. The opposition in India, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
saw the visit as a disaster, while the Conservative Party, the
opposition in Britain, called it as damaging for UK-India relations.
However, Miliband’s views that were expressed in the British
newspaper The Guardian (issue dated 15 January 2009) were said
to be personal and unintended; they did not want to hurt Indian
sentiments. Apart from this hiccup that did not affect bilateral ties,
Britain-India relations remained cordial after the Cold War.
The two countries have devised several bilateral mechanisms for
closer cooperation. These are: (1) Foreign Office Consultations
(FOC), which are held annually between foreign officials of the two
states; (2) Joint Working Group (JWG) on Counter Terrorism and
Strategic Dialogue; (3) India-UK Round Table where multi-faceted
bilateral issues are discussed every year; (4) India-UK Joint Trade
and Economic Committee (JETCO); (5) India-UK Financial
Dialogue; (vi) India-UK Investment Summit; (7) India-UK
Education Forum for forging closer partnership in the field of
education; and (8) UK-India Education and Research Initiative
(UKIERI). All these bilateral initiatives were established in the new
century, most of them during bilateral visits of important leaders
of the two countries.

Economic relations between India and Britain have strengthened

over the years through increased trade and investment flows. The
volume of two-way bilateral trade was US $11 billion till February
2009, and is expected to cross US $15 billion by the end of 2011.
Britain’s cumulative investment in India from April 2000 to March
2009 was nearly US $6 billion. In 2010, it is the fourth largest
investor in India. India has emerged as the third largest foreign
investor in Britain and the second largest overseas investor in
London and Northern Ireland, in terms of number of acquisitions
or investments. It is the second largest creator of jobs in Britain
with over 500 Indian companies opening offices there. London
Stock Exchange hosts fifty-two Indian companies, with a combined
market capitalization of £9 billion. The strong Indian diaspora
living in Britain acts as a catalyst for stronger bilateral ties. The
population of Indians living in Britain is estimated to be 1.5
million, mostly engaged in ‘white collar’jobs and business. The
Indian community is now very active in British politics, and is
capable of impacting the courses of bilateral relations.

During her visit to England in October 2009, President of India

Pratibha Patil asserted that India and Britain have now emerged as
‘natural partners’ in the twenty-first century. At present, the two
countries are negotiating a civil nuclear cooperation agreement,
which will take a definite shape in the near future. This agreement
would further boost relations between the two countries. Britain-
India relations have immense potential for growth. For instance,
 trade relations between the two countries may scale new heights.
Both Britain and India are focusing on this area, aiming at trade
worth US $50 billion in the near future. Both Britain and India
have a parliamentary democratic set up, with free society and
media. Indian students join several British universities every year
and act as cultural linkages between the two countries. The large
English-speaking middle class in India would welcome stronger
and more stable bilateral relations with one of the world’s oldest
democracies.

QUESTIONS

1. Analyse the basic principles of Indian foreign policy.

2. Trace the evolution of Indian foreign policy.
3. Analyse American foreign policy after the Cold War.
4. Examine Chinese foreign policy in the backdrop of the post-Cold War world.
5. Make a critical assessment of the Russian foreign policy after the Cold War.
6. Bring out the essence of the Japanese foreign policy after the Cold War.
7. Examine the foreign policy of Britain after the Cold War.

12
Recent Issues in International Relations

Astudy of international relations deals with several emerging

issues that have a profound impact on international politics,
economy, security, and environment. In a complex and changing
international order, issues like globalization, terrorism, energy or
ecology have assumed increased significance and require careful
academic analysis. In fact, no discourse on IR is now complete
without any reference to these important issues.In this concluding
chapter, these emerging issues in IR are taken up for sincere
analysis; it starts with the issue of globalization, a much debated
and significant aspect of the present world.

GLOBALIZATION

Meaning of the Term

It is indeed impossible, and perhaps improper to provide a fixed
definition of globalization because the term is used in economic,
social, political, cultural and many other areas. We come across
phrases like ‘globalization of civil society’, ‘globalization of
American culture’ or ‘globalization of cricket’. In such phrases, the
worldwide expansion of, let us say, American culture or of cricket,
have been emphasized. In that sense, globalization refers to the
worldwide presence and importance of a certain phenomenon, like
civil society, or cricket, or American culture. But having kept all
these myriad meanings of globalization in mind, we must note that
in the study of IR, the economic and political connotations of
globalization are important. In fact, if one says that globalization is
primarily an economic concept, one would not be wrong. In today’s
world, globalization primarily refers to economic activities which
have serious impact on political and social spheres. In these
examples, if one says that globalization of American culture or
cricket has economic interests involved, one would not be wrong
again. With the ascendance of liberal economy over mercantilist
economy since the early 1980s, the term globalization has assumed
increasing popularity and usage, and primarily refers to economic
activities on a worldwide basis.

Globalization today mainly refers to expansion of economic

activities like trade, and movement of capital and goods and
labour, beyond borders. The socio-political impact of such
economic activities can hardly be ignored.The process of
globalization may affect domestic as well as international economy,
and may have spill-over repercussions on national and
international politics. For example, business process outsourcing
(BPO) from the United States to India created political controversy
in the US and became a campaign issue in the 2008 presidential
elections. Similarly, the growing popularity of Japanese
automobile and electronic goods in the US was a matter of concern
for the Americans. Further, the controversy over the merits and
demerits of globalization is very livid in international politics.
Considering all these issues associated with the term, a workable
(not fixed in any sense) definition of globalization may be
provided:
 The term ‘globalization’ primarily refers to
economic activities like trade, movement of capital,
goods, labour, and communication system across
boundaries facilitating higher levels of
interconnectedness in the world. These economic
activities have great impact on socio-political
sectors nationally and internationally.
The ubiquitous and influential nature of (economic) globalization
has led to the use of the term in every other area, like globalization
of baseball, globalization of rock music, globalization of civil
society, or globalization of Hindi films. The term is used today in
all activities on a worldwide scale.

Globalization: Different Views

With increasing popularity and importance of globalization, the

term globalization drew different and contradictory views from
different scholars around the world. One view that supports
globalization and mainly comes from the rich industrial North,
holds that globalization has benefited the world immensely. The
idea of the integrated global market helps the rich and the poor at
the same time. According to this view, if the rich get cheap labour
from the global market, the poor would have continuous access to
capital and goods. The growing access to markets worldwide would
help the rich and the poor alike. Supporters of this view believe
that globalization has ultimately brought the fruits of liberal
economy to people all over the world. Free and competitive trade
would break the shackles of state-controlled, subsidized, idle
economy that is not growth-oriented. The process of globalization
would ultimately integrate national economies into an
interconnected global market, and the fruits of this
interconnectedness could be shared by all states, rich and poor. A
free, growth-centered, liberal economy would help the poor state to
move on the path of unprecedented economic development,
thereby narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. The
supporters of globalization also believe that from an economic
point of view, national boundaries are becoming less important.
The global market is making national geography irrelevant. Today,
an increase in the price of petroleum in the global market can hit
Indian domestic kitchens. Further, any embargo on business
process outsourcing to India by the US government may affect
American private business as the cost of labour would then go up
in the US. So if India, a poor country, suffers in the first example,
the US, a rich nation, gets affected in the second example. Thus
globalization is a great leveller, claim the supporters of
globalization.

The benefits of globalization, according to its supporters, can be

best observed through the revolution in information technology
(IT) in recent years. The IT revolution has indeed made the world
very small, facilitating unprecedented levels of communication
around the globe. Every part of the world, rich or poor, is enjoying
the fruits of this IT revolution. An e-mail bridges the North and the
South of the world within seconds; a great deal of information in
almost all areas, from medical sciences to tourism, to movies, to
higher education, is exchanged daily across the world. This
revolution has also given a boost to trade and commercial activities
all over the world, according to supporters of globalization. For
instance, N. R. Narayana Murthy, the founder of Infosys
Technologies Limited, and a pioneer of IT revolution in India, had
stated in clear terms that economic liberalization in India (in 1991)
had proved to be a boon for information technology and software
industries, and many other industries in India.1 The IT revolution
has also increased interconnectedness in the world to a great
extent, paving ways for greater economic and social cooperation
across the globe. It also posed a challenge to the concepts of state-
controlled economy, state boundary and state sovereignty which
had become vulnerable due to the IT boom.

A second view, which mainly comes from the underdeveloped

South and from some scholars of the advanced North, criticizes
globalization and its ways for the economic woes of the world.
According to these critics, the fruits of globalization are not
enjoyed universally, but mainly by the rich states, due to their
superior control over the flow of capital and the communication
system. The North-South divide has not been obliterated; on the
contrary, it is very much pronounced and visible in today’s world.
Millions of people are still excluded from the purview of
globalization, and they suffer in silence. The view that an
integrated world market has replaced national economy is
altogether wrong. The state still has, and must retain, enough
control over the national economy in the third world to move it
towards people’s benefit. A profit-oriented global market can never
think of the benefit of all the people in the world; only a state-
guided national economy can think of the benefit of the indigenous
people. Globalization, according to these critics, has not generated
an unbiased, integrated, free world market; it has rather created
antagonistic, rival, regional economic blocs in Europe, America
and Asia. These regional economic blocs would fight against one
another for the control of markets in different parts of the world.
Therefore, principles of free trade, that regional economic groups
claim to follow, must not be seen as a boon; they may actually lead
to more squabbles in the world.

A third view comes from a group of scholars who believe that the
problem lies not with globalization itself, but with how it has been
managed. These scholars believe that globalization, if managed
properly, can be immensely beneficial for the people. The notion of
globalization only as an economic activity must be changed to
make it more humane. As Joseph Stiglitz, a leading proponent of
this view writes:

One of the reasons globalization is being attacked is

that it seems to undermine traditional values.…
Economic growth—including that induced by
globalization—will result in urbanization,
undermining traditional rural societies.
Unfortunately, so far, those responsible for
managing globalization, while praising these
positive benefits, all too often have shown an
insufficient appreciation of this adverse side, the
threat to cultural identity and values.2
Stiglitz therefore recommends ‘globalization with a more human
face’ to reap its benefits. Sincere reshaping of the current form of
globalization is required to give it a more human face. The changes
that he suggests for reshaping the current form of globalization
are: (1) reforming the international financial system with drastic
changes in the work of the global financial institutions like the
IMF, the WTO and the World Bank; (2) adopting policies for
sustainable, equitable and democratic growth; and (3) altering the
capitalist view of ‘development’ where the industrially advanced
countries ‘guide’ the process of development of the weaker nations.
The less-advanced countries must assume responsibility for their
own development. Globalization, if properly managed, can boost
democracy, civil society, and sustainable development with a
human face, believes Stiglitz.

Contradictory views on globalization reflect people’s interest in it

all over the world. Globalization aroused the interest of scholars as
well as the common man because it touches everybody’s daily life.
Very few concepts have generated so much interest and
controversy in recent years as globalization had done. This
phenomenon has made an enormous impact on international and
domestic trade, democracy, civil society, and the notion of
sovereignty of the state. This idea of state sovereignty faced a new
challenge with the march of globalization. Global free trade and
communication revolution, among other phenomena, posed a
threat to the state. The next section of this chapter analyses the
position of the nation-state vis-à-vis globalization.

Globalization and Sovereignty of the State

Globalization, with emphasis on an integrated and interconnected

world, is believed to have dealt a severe blow to the concept of state
sovereignty. The free movement of capital, goods and labour
around the world; the free flow of communication across state
boundaries; the mighty presence of the MNCs; and related events
have raised questions about the supremacy of the notion of
sovereignty of the state. It is believed that in this age of free trade
and communication revolution, the role of the state has been
minimized. With increasing and strong presence of non-state
actors like the MNCs, the NGOs and the IGOs, the once-powerful
state is no longer in a position to exert its strong control over
economic, social, and trans-national activities. Also, the demand
for a limited state—once the leading demand behind laissez faire—
has been rejuvenated in the West, because, according to the
proponents of globalization, free trade requires a minimal state.
Further, the state has limited control over the world wide web of
communication, and related information system; it has practically
no control over intercontinental ballistic missiles that can strike
targets with immaculate precision across boundaries. Therefore,
according to the supporters of globalization, the state has been
rendered helpless in many situations, and the notion of state
sovereignty has become vulnerable in our times.

Elements of truism could be found in these arguments. Due to the

pressure of external and internal forces, the state has been facing a
crisis precisely since the Second World War. With the advent of
nuclear weapons, the expanding commercial activities of the
MNCs, and the international financial system introduced by the
Bretton Woods Conference, the state began to face external
competitors after the Second World War. Internally, the maturity
of the civil society, the unprecedented rise of pressure and interest
groups, and growing politicization of the society, challenged the
supremacy of the state after the war. Consequently, the notion of
the state as the all-important controlling power in the society
started to erode. Further, in the era of globalization—that began in
the 1980s, in the modern sense of the term—the concept of an
integrated world based on trade without barriers, and the
spectacular IT revolution made the world a truly small place. The
state also appeared to be small in terms of its power as it had little
control over the course of international trade, and communication
flow. Moreover, the growing menace of international terrorism,
and in some countries, internal terrorism, also made the state
appear helpless and vulnerable. All these factors made the idea of
the impenetrable state a phenomenon of the past.

It is true that in an interconnected world, the state can never

remain isolated to enjoy its absolute sovereignty over groups,
citizens, associations, and institutions. The state needs to follow
the international economic, political or environmental order to
remain engaged internationally. It is almost impossible for a state
to ignore the international economic or political regulations.
Isolation is almost impossible in today’s world. But having noted
all these, it must be mentioned that the state is not completely lost
today. Apart from retaining its sovereign control over revenue
collection, currency, defence, and foreign policy, the state also
retains its sovereign voice as far as international economic or
political regimes are concerned. The state has the right to oppose,
and if necessary reject, any stipulation imposed by the UNO or the
WTO, or the IMF. But one important factor must be remembered
at this point—the state referred to is not a homogenous category
here. It is easier for a strong state to oppose or reject any
regulation from an international body, whereas it is very difficult
for a weak state to do the same thing. But here too a weak state has
the sovereignty to go for shrewd diplomacy in order to bring the
situation in its favour. In other words, a weak state may try to
garner support from some of the stronger states to oppose the
targeted regulation and may finally become successful in rejecting
it. In another situation, if the strong states are not inclined to
support, the weak state may get the support of several other weak
states, and together they could oppose the regulation.
International diplomacy would not be bereft of examples of such
possibilities. Therefore, a state has several options at its disposal to
deal with the international community.

Internally, the state should not view the rise of the civil society or
group politics as antagonistic factors. It must follow the democratic
methods of dialogue, negotiation, and peaceful settlement in order
to meet their demands. In the age of globalization, a democratic
state has the best chance to preserve its sovereignty compared to
an autocratic state. A pluralistic society is not opposed, but
complementary to the state. Internal terrorism may be countered
by the state through socioeconomic development of the estranged
people. For combatting international terrorism, states need to join
hands with one another. In the final analysis, an integrated world
does not replace an international system based on sovereign
equality of the nation-states. As observed in Chapter 10, the post-
Second World War international economic and political orders
continue to remain essentially state-oriented till today. States are
the most important players at the UNO, WTO, IMF, World Bank
and other international bodies, and although strong states are
more visible in these organizations, the voices of the weaker states
are not always submerged in them.

States are not completely helpless even in the age of globalization.

In the third world, the state is, and needs to be, in the steering
position for socio-economic developmental efforts, because
equitable distribution of socio-economic resources cannot be left at
the hands of private agencies. The ‘welfare’ role of the state can
never be fully surrendered. In order to have ‘globalization with a
human face’, the state cannot be totally sidelined. The state has not
lost its control over MNCs, NGOs, IGOs and the IT revolution; it
has only allowed them to stay reasonably free. This is also true for
the advanced world, where state initiative is required to combat
social and economic crises. The great financial recession in the
West in 2008 required the intervention of the state in the US,
Britain and many other advanced countries. Further, new
problems of the age of globalization, like international terrorism
and environmental degradation, can never be tackled effectively
without the active and leading participation of the state. The state
is thus very much visible, and will continue to be seen in future in
many spheres of domestic and international activities with its
sovereignty retained firmly. The state has been willingly sharing
many of its tasks with non-state actors since the Second World
War, because it suited the interests of the state in a changing world
order. So, the sovereignty of the state would melt down only to the
extent the state would want it to dissipate.

ENVIRONMENT

Environmental issues have assumed greater significance in the

study of international relations today than ever before because
industrialization and technological progress have enhanced
concerns for environmental safety all over the world. Like
globalization and IT revolution, environmental issues too have
made states across world highly interdependent today because
carbon emissions from industrial plants in one part of the globe
may affect other parts; a leakage in a nuclear power plant in one
state of Europe, for instance, may create airborne radioactivity
throughout the continent and even beyond, causing serious health
hazards; shortage of river water in a state of Africa may lead it to a
war with neighbouring states. Many more instances could be
provided to show that environmental issues have now assumed
global character, and constitute an important area of study in
International Relations. Environmental issues cover a vast area
from pollution leading to global warming and climate change, to
demographic alteration including population explosion, to sharing
of natural resources, to the question of international peace and
security, and many more. Some of these important issues are taken
up for analysis in this section.
 Global Warming and Climate Change

Rapid and increasing industrialization in the world have led to the

problem of global warming and climate change in recent years.
Industrial emissions in different parts of the world have created a
Green House Effect that significantly affected the rise in global
temperature. When industrial and transport gases, mainly carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
are released into the atmosphere, they act like glass panes in a
green house normally built to save plants in very cold climates.
These gases in the atmosphere allow solar radiation falling on the
earth, but absorb and reflect back to the earth’s surface the long-
wave infrared part of the radiated solar rays. This way the heat
radiated from the earth’s surface is trapped, causing tremendous
increase in global temperature. The consequential impacts are
dangerous. Rise in temperature would melt the age-old ice caps of
the polar region causing increase in sea-level in different parts of
the world. The densely populated regions along the sea coast all
over the world would be inundated. Many island-states face the
danger of disappearing from the world map. Further, melting
down of the ice covers in the high mountains would cause rivers to
rise and flood vast areas, causing irreparable devastation on earth.
Global warming results in severe climate change in many parts of
the world, causing unprecedented floods, droughts, cyclonic
storms, and widespread disruption of the ecological system.

Apart from industrial and transport gases, global warming is also

caused by rapid deforestation of the earth. In many regions, forests
have been removed for the sake of urbanization and
industrialization. Resources from forests are also used for various
industries. As a result, trees and forests are becoming lesser in
number. Tropical rain forests in Brazil, for example, are on the
wane. Reduction of forests is causing global warming since trees
absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Lesser trees would mean
more carbon dioxide on earth and rise in global temperature. A
related and equally serious problem is the depletion of the zone
layer over the earth. This layer, which exists over the earth’s
surface at a height between ten and thirty-five kilometres, prevents
harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays of the sun from reaching the earth.
Some industrial emissions, mainly CFCs, interact with the ozone
layer and break it down, causing holes in the layer through which
UV rays of the sun reach the earth. These rays are dangerous. They
cause skin cancer in human beings and many animals, and
agricultural crops are destroyed; biodiversity (huge diversity of
plant and animal species on earth) is disturbed, and the earth’s
ecological system is severely affected.

Global warming and climate change have serious repercussions on

international relations because states have started to blame one
another over the issue of industrial and transport emissions. The
states of the South blame the rich industrial North for maximum
emissions, while the advanced Northern states accuse the less-
developed countries of the South of poor safety measures in their
industrial plants, which they think cause huge emissions. Within
the North as well as the South, states blame one another over
issues like emission, sharing of natural resources, and
displacement and migration of people due to ecological disorders.
Side by side, there are international efforts—these are analysed
later in this chapter—to tackle problems related to environment.
International Relations and studies related to it are, therefore,
immensely influenced by environmental issues.

Demographic Issues

Growth in world population, particularly in the poor South, is a

major area of concern for the environmentalists. The world
population, which is around 6.5 billion at present, is expected to
reach around 9 billion by 2050. About 95 per cent of the
population growth would take place in states of the South, putting
maximum pressure on their resources, both natural and created.
Several states of the South may face problems like shortage of food,
housing, employment; lack of adequate roads and transportation;
and health hazards, if agricultural, social and industrial
infrastructures are not properly developed. More people with
limited resources would create enormous pressure on the
environment, and escalate social tension. Although many states
have adopted policies to curb population growth, the rate of
success in this regard varies from one state to another. In China,
for instance, the rate of population growth has decreased fast,
whereas in states like Pakistan and Nigeria it has not been equally
fast.
Some years ago, population growth was explained in terms of
falling death rate, while the birth rate remained steady, due to
advancement in medical sciences. While this argument is still valid
for population growth in some states, the birth rate is also
decreasing in most of the states of the world due to governmental
policies to arrest population rise. However, the gap between the
rates at which the birth rate and the death rate decrease is
important with respect to the analysis of population growth. In a
state where this gap is wide, population growth would take place
more steadily than in a state where this gap is narrow.
Demographic issues cover many interesting yet intriguing aspects.
It has been observed in several states of the South that when
economy grows faster than population, the total number of poor
people may actually increase. This mainly happens when fruits of
economic growth are enjoyed by a minority in the population.
Therefore, arrest of population growth is not the only goal of a
state, distribution of resources in a more or less just manner is
more important in order to achieve reduction in poverty.

Rise in population affects a state’s economy and environment in

several ways. Unchecked growth in population leads to low per
capita income in a state, which in turn hampers economic
development. Low per capita income may lead to less purchasing
power, which ultimately affects the domestic market. Further, a
rising population fosters acute competition for economic
resources, and those who are deprived of economic means may get
involved in social crime and violence. In many poor states of the
South, perpetual social violence due to inadequate economic
resources have crippled socio-political systems, and in turn
severely affected economic development. A rising population
would also put severe pressure on natural resources like water,
land, minerals, forests, and seas, leading to serious imbalance in
the ecological system. It would be more prone to health hazards
because a weak economy cannot guarantee health security for all
people. Thus, in the long run, population growth puts immense
pressure on the economy and the environment, leading to social
and political tensions, health hazards and poverty.

Environment and International Peace

International peace and security are now much dependent on
environmental issues; and environment, in turn, can be sustained
through international peace. Environmental issues like sharing of
river water and territories, or forest and sea resources, or climate
change, may affect international peace and security. States go to
war over these issues. One of the principal reasons behind the long
war between Iran and Iraq from 1980 to 1988 was the issue of
control over Shatt-al-Arab, a common water body spanning across
the two states. The mountainous Kashmir valley remained a bone
of contention between India and Pakistan for more than six
decades and led to two large-scale wars and one undeclared war
(two full wars in 1947–48 and 1965; and the recent Kargil ‘War’ in
1999). Territorial occupation has been the main source of conflict
between the Palestinians and Israelis for nearly seven decades. The
Caspian Sea, the largest inland water body in the world—with its
abundant natural resources, including oil and gas—was a point of
controversy between former Soviet Union and Iran, and after the
Cold War, among the states surrounding the Caspian Sea. Today,
there is a North-South divide not only over economic issues, but
also over the question of climate change. As already noted, the
North and the South accuse each other of maximum emissions that
lead to environmental degradation. Global warming and climate
change, if not tackled effectively, might lead to more conflicts in
the world in future, and threaten international peace and security.

Present-day world politics has a great and serious impact on

environmental issues. Many scholars working on environment
blame international politics for global warming and climate
change.3 In order to protect their national interests in world
politics, and gain economic benefits, several states are not paying
enough attention to the issue of environmental degradation.
Further, wars and conflicts wreck havoc on the environment across
the globe. The world has not forgotten the dropping of atom bombs
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the resulting devastation of
environment and population, both human and animal. In the more
recent Gulf War in 1991, Iraqi military burnt oil wells in Kuwait
and also spilled oil in the Gulf, causing unprecedented ecological
disasters and health hazards. In almost all conflicts, regional or
global, the warring parties deliberately degrade the environment to
garner advantage over the opposition. They set fire to forests, level
villages and towns, damage agricultural lands, poison river water,
spray harmful gases, and resort to many other tactics that are
detrimental to our ecological system. The environment is
deliberately damaged during wars. Environmental safety is,
therefore, highly dependent on international peace and security.

International Efforts to Safeguard the Environment

Today’s world is much concerned about environmental

degradation because it threatens the very existence of life on earth.
Apart from national governments, inter-governmental
organizations (IGOs) like the UNO, as well as several NGOs, hold
regular meetings and summits to discuss environmental issues and
take necessary steps to safeguard the environment. Notable among
the more recent international efforts to save our environment are
the UN Environment Program (UNEP) launched in 1989; UN
Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 (popularly known as the ‘Earth Summit’);
International Conference on Population and Development held in
Cairo, Egypt, in 1994; International Conference on Natural
Disaster Reduction in 1994; Second UN Conference on Human
Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul, Turkey in 1996; the
Millennium Assembly of the UN in New York in 2000; and the UN
Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in
December 2009. Table 12.1 presents a list of important
conventions, conferences and summits on environment and related
issues, held recently in different parts of the world.

Table 12.1: Important International Conferences on

Environmental Protection

Name of the Convention/Conference/Summit

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention)

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar)

Convention on Biological Diversity

Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna

UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), Rio de Janeiro

International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo

UN Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States

International Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction

Conference on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

World Food Summit

Second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) Istanbul

Earth Summit + 5

General Assembly Special Session on Small Island Developing States

UN Workshop on Energy Efficiency, Global Competitiveness and Deregulation

The Millennium Assembly of the UN, New York

The UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen

It could be ascertained from the table that national governments,

IGOs and NGOs all over the world are seriously concerned about
environmental problems and they try to resolve such problems.
For this purpose, several conferences, conventions and summits
were held in different parts of the world on different aspects of
environmental and related issues. The names of conferences,
conventions and summits outlined in the table are indicative of the
issues taken up for discussion there. For instance, the Earth
Summit convened by the UN in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 was
one of the biggest conventions ever held on environment and
development, involving people from over a hundred states. The UN
Climate Change Conference, held in Copenhagen in December
2009, is the biggest conference on environmental degradation so
far, attended by 195 states. The ‘Copenhagen Accord’, agreed upon
at the conference, recognized that climate change is one of the
greatest challenges of our times and that actions should be taken to
keep any increase in temperature below two degrees Celsius. But it
should also be noted at this point that only international
conferences and summits are not enough to address problems
related to environment; the issue of economic development across
the globe is integrally linked to this. The poor states lack enough
resources to tackle problems associated with environmental
degradation, although they have the desire to address them. Such
problems would not, hence, be effectively resolved if
underdevelopment and poverty continue to affect world economy
in a similar manner in future.

ENERGY

Generally speaking, issues related to energy resources come under

the broader theme of environment. But the increasing importance
of energy in international politics in recent years demands a
separate analysis of energy resources. Like globalization, energy
issues determine the twists and turns in international politics
today. They have assumed greater significance in the study of
international relations. Among several natural resources, energy
resources are very important for modern post-industrial economy.
Energy resources like oil, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and
nuclear power are crucial for the survival of today’s sophisticated
industrial economy. Of different energy resources, oil constitutes
about 40 per cent of world energy consumption, followed by coal
that makes for about 30 per cent. Natural gas constitutes about 25
per cent, and hydroelectric and nuclear powers make for another 5
per cent of world energy consumption in 2010. The following chart
illustrates current major energy resources in the world. Countries
having sufficient energy resources may have the potential to
become driving forces in international economy and politics.
Conversely, countries having little energy base may not play the
role of important actors in international politics.

Trading in energy has assumed significant proportions all over the

world and will continue to grow in future. Subsequently, marketed
energy consumption will also rise worldwide by 2030. In 2006,
marketed energy consumption in all energy resources was 472
quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTU). This will rise to 678 BTU,
an increase of 44 per cent, by 2030. This rise will take place due to
increased consumption of major energy resources like oil and other
petroleum products, coal, natural gas, electricity, biofuels, and
nuclear energy. Table 12.2 highlights the projected increase in
global marketed energy consumption of some significant items
from 2006 to 2030.

It is evident from the data presented in Table 12.2 that marketed

energy consumption in the world will grow significantly by the year
2030, with more than 30 per cent rise in almost all energy
resources. This growth in energy consumption will escalate the
demand for energy, as well as competition among states to procure
more and more energy. The twists and turns in international
relations in the coming decades would be determined by the
politics and economics of energy resources. The largest consumers
in energy resources will have advantages in industry and
commerce, but will also face condemnation for polluting the
environment and abetting global warming. In this context, it would
be appropriate to look at the per capita consumption of energy,
both region-wise and nation-wise, in the world. Table
12.3 highlights region-wise per capita energy consumption in the
world from 1990 to 2005.

Figure 12.1: Major Energy Resources of the World

 
Table 12.2: Increase in World Marketed Energy Consumption:
2006–2030
*British Thermal Units

Source: Energy Information Administration, Department of

Energy, Government of the United States of America
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html)

Table 12.3: Region-wise Per Capita Energy Consumption in the

World: 1990–2005 [in Kilograms of Oil Equivalent (kgoe) Per
Person]

Source: ‘Earth Trends’, http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-
resources/variable-351.html/.

It is clear from the data presented in Table 12.3 that North

America, a highly developed industrial region in the world,
remained the biggest per capita consumer of energy resources from
1990 to 2005. Further, the ‘high-income’ and ‘developed’ countries
were also top consumers of energy. Conversely, the ‘low-income’
and ‘developing’ countries remained small consumers of energy
resources from 1990 to 2005. However, per capita energy
consumption per person in the world as a whole increased from
1,668 kgoe in 1990 to 1,778 kgoe in 2005. A glance at state-wise per
capita energy consumption during the same period (1990–2005)
would show the extent of use of energy around the world. Table
12.4 illustrates this.

Table 12.4 reveals that per capita energy consumption is highest in

Middle East countries like Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE),
and Bahrain. Energy consumption in each of these countries
exceeds energy consumption in developed countries like USA, UK,
Canada, Italy, Australia and Japan. The countries of the Indian
subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka), rank
among the countries having lowest energy consumption in the
world. For instance, in 2005, energy consumption in Bangladesh
was 171 kgoe, in India 491 kgoe, in Sri Lanka 478 kgoe, and in
Pakistan 490 kgoe. The same year, energy consumption in Qatar
was 19,466 kgoe, in Bahrain 11,180 kgoe, in the USA 7,885.9 kgoe,
and in Iceland it was 12,209.4 kgoe. The table clearly substantiates
that poor countries are the lowest consumers of energy, whereas
the high-income countries are the top consumers of energy in
today’s world.

Table 12.4: Per Capita Energy Consumption of Select Countries:

1990–2005 [in Kilograms of Oil Equivalent (kgoe) Per Person]
Source: ‘Earth Trends’, http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-
resources/variable-351.html/.

Energy and International Relations Today

Energy resources play a crucial role in international politics and
economy. Trade in energy resources constitutes the backbone of
many national economies, and also a major part of world trade
today. For instance, the economy of OPEC countries like Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Algeria, and Nigeria are
heavily dependent on oil exports. India has been earning
substantial foreign exchange by exporting coal to different parts of
the world. The industrialized North America and West Europe
import most of the energy resources from other parts of the world
to sustain their industries and ‘developed’ standards of living of the
people. These regions of the world consume large energy products
and their economy is also dependent on the import of energy
resources. Trade in energy has become very lucrative nowadays,
and countries and regional organizations are trying to reap benefits
from energy trade. For instance, the Russian Federation has
emerged as one of the largest exporters of oil and natural gas to
Europe and other parts of the world, and this trade in energy is
considered vital for the revival of Russian economy. The World
Bank has advised South Asian countries to augment cooperation in
energy trade, and the SAARC is trying to move ahead to achieve
such cooperation.

Issues related to energy had always played a significant part in

international politics. In the sixteenth to twentieth centuries, the
European powers colonized countries of the Middle East, Latin
America, Africa, and Asia for energy resources like oil, coal, and
natural gas. Some Arab countries stopped supply of oil to the US
for the latter’s support to Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israel war. The
American economy was hit hard as oil prices soared in the
American market. One of the largest importers of petroleum
products, the US faced acute shortage of oil and gasoline. This ‘oil
diplomacy’ by the Arab countries in effect put the OPEC into
limelight, and enhanced its manoeuvring power in world politics.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the OPEC remained at the centre
of world politics as it controlled the price and market of oil.
However, since the 1990s, its dominance in international politics
has been decreasing due to the emergence of several non-OPEC oil
and natural gas producing countries like Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kirghizstan,
Norway and Denmark. But it should be noted here that the OPEC
still wields considerable clout in international politics.

Energy resources may lead to conflicts among states. One of the

primary reasons for Iraqi attack on Kuwait in 1991 was to secure
rights over the Kuwaiti oil fields. But when this aim could not be
fulfilled, Iraqi forces burned the Kuwaiti oil reserves. Further,
conflicting claims over energy resources in the Caspian Sea had
soured the international relations between Russia and Iran, as also
among countries surrounding the Caspian Sea. The possibility of
generating hydro-electricity from rivers meandering through
international political borders has generated conflict-situations
among states. The Jordan river is a source of discontent among
Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. The Nile flows through Egypt,
Kenya, Sudan, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Zaire.
Several ‘Nile-river states’ have a cold relation among themselves,
and the source of such unfriendly relations is the issue of the share
of the water of the Nile for irrigation and hydro-electricity. The
Farakka Barrage set up by India on the River Ganges created
animosity with Bangladesh, which accused India of masterminding
a plan to dry out Bangladesh. River water disputes are plenty in
international politics, and several of these relate to generation of
hydro-electric power from river water. Oil and gas pipelines, either
proposed ones or those actually running through several states,
also lead to conflict-situations. Chechen rebels damaged oil
pipelines running from Azerbaijan to the Black Sea through
Chechnya in southern Russia. The proposed natural gas pipeline
from Iran to India via Afghanistan and Pakistan had been
postponed due to objections from Pakistan. Energy and related
issues thus often determine the turns and tides of international
relations.

TERRORISM

Definition and Short History

Terrorism is motivated violence aimed at destabilizing civil order

and creating panic among people and governments. It is an act of
violence that is usually politically motivated, with the ultimate
design to threaten the targeted population or government.
Individuals or groups resorting to such motivated violence are
known as terrorists, although this fixed definition carries the risk
of being motivated itself because an individual who is considered a
terrorist by X, may be a freedom fighter to Y. Similarly, acts of
terrorism may be treated by some as freedom struggles or fights for
justice. Therefore, ubiquitous definitions of terrorism or terrorists
are almost impossible. However, when organized violence is
carried out with the particular motive of threatening the existing
social and political order, when innocent lives are taken away for
securing a particular goal, such violence may be treated as
terrorism; and individuals or groups responsible for this violence
may be called terrorists.

Terrorism, in the sense of motivated organized violence, is nothing

new. The earliest examples of terrorism could be found in the first
century AD. when Jewish groups like the Sicari and the Zealots
killed Roman government officials with the ultimate motive to
bring an end to Roman occupation in Palestine. Followers of other
religions also resorted to methods of terrorism. In the eleventh
century, ‘Assassins’, an offshoot of a Shia Muslim sect known as
the Ismailis, killed their targets, usually politicians and
government officials, who refused to convert to the assassins’
version of Islam. Sacrifice was another cause behind terrorist acts
carried out by the ‘Thugees’, a Hindu religious cult who strangled
their victims, normally travellers, for offerings to the Hindu
goddess ‘Kali’. Thugees were very active from the seventh to the
mid-nineteenth centuries, and allegedly killed nearly a million
people. They, along with the assassins, were the early examples of
religious terrorism, which resurfaced in the late twentieth century.

Terrorism in the modern sense originated in France in the late

eighteenth century. In 1793–94, a new French Revolutionary
Republic, led by Maximilien Robespierre, used terrorism to deal
with ‘subversive forces’. The first example of modern state
terrorism, Robespierre considered the method of terrorism as a
positive weapon to crush ‘anti-revolutionary’ elements. His
government used the ‘guillotine’ to behead individuals who were
suspected opponents of his regime. Nearly fifty thousand people
were guillotined by the Revolutionary Republic before a popular
uprising sent Robespierre and his trusted men to the guillotine.
Later, in the 1930s, Hitler’s Nazi Government resorted to horrific
state terrorism when thousands of Jews were brutally assassinated.

Types of Terrorism

This brief historical study of terrorism leads us to analyse different

types of terrorism prevalent in the world today. Terrorism can be
broadly classified into five types: political, ethnic, religious, state,
and international terrorism. But it must be noted here that there
are thin lines of demarcation among different types of terrorism.
For instance, ethnic, religious or international terrorism may be
carried out to gain political objectives. In that sense, every type of
terrorism may have ulterior political motives. Further, political
terrorism may have ethnic or religious issues involved. This
classification of terrorism is thus not an absolute one; it rather
helps a comprehensive understanding of the issue of terrorism.A
discussion of each type of terrorism follows.
Political Terrorism

When a group or a political party resorts to organized violence for

destabilizing the existing political order, with the motive to
establish a new one, such violence may be termed as political
terrorism. But terrorism here is a relative term again; those
favouring the new political order may view this act of violence as a
fight for justice and right to self-determination. In this sense of
terrorism, the activities of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) or the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were treated as political
terrorism by the British or the Israelis. The activities of the Kurdish
groups in Turkey or the ‘Basque Fatherland’ in Spain are also
examples of political terrorism, because they also want to change
the existing political orders.
Ethnic Terrorism

Organized violence perpetuated for establishing ethnic dominance

or to secure ethnic demands may be termed as ethnic terrorism.
The LTTE’s (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) demand for a
separate Tamil state, and its attack on civilian targets in Sri Lanka
that killed thousands of ordinary Sinhalese people, could be cited
as an example. In the 1990s, ethnic trouble in Bosnia took the
shape of ethnic terrorism where the Serbs tried to wipe off the
Muslim Albanians and other non-Serb communities like the
Croatians. The desire to establish Serb domination over the region
(known as former Yugoslavia) by the Serb leaders led to such
ethnic terrorism. Hitler’s repression over the Jews in Europe in the
1930s was another example of ethnic terrorism. In all these
instances, ethnic terrorism had definite political motivations that
led to large-scale organized violence.
Religious Terrorism

When organized motivated violence is carried out in the name of

preserving the ‘dignity’ of a religion and its followers, such
activities may be termed as religious terrorism. The Al Qaeda,
Talibans, Lebanese Hizbollah, Abu Nidal, Lashkar-e-Toiba and
many such groups resort to terrorism to uphold the ‘dignity’ of
their religion. The Al Qaeda, led by the Saudi oil baron Osama Bin
Laden, vowed several times to punish those individuals and states
that undermined Islam. It carried terrorist attacks on American
embassies in different parts of the world before crashing two
passenger planes into the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York
on 11 September 2001. Nearly ten thousand people died in this
ghastly terrorist strike, the biggest in American history since the
Second World War. The Talibans assassinated people at will in
Afghanistan for not following the ‘practices’ of Islam. The Lashkar-
e-Toiba and similar other terrorist organizations are active in the
Kashmir valley of India in order to ‘liberate’ Kashmir, a Muslim-
majority province, from India. These organizations frequently
target the Indian army and ordinary civilians to create panic as
well as to draw attention of the media, people, the Indian
government and the international community. Political motives
also act as major forces behind religious terrorism.
State Terrorism

When the government of a state resorts to organized violence to

eliminate the ‘opponents’ with a view to establish its control, such
acts of violence are known as state terrorism. It has been observed
earlier that rulers like Robespierre and Hitler resorted to state
terrorism to finish off their targeted opponents. In recent times,
rulers like Pol Pot of Cambodia and Idi Amin of Uganda resorted to
terrorist tactics to frighten people to follow their governments’
dictates. In the mid-1970s, the Pol Pot regime forced city dwellers
in Cambodia to go to the countryside to work in collective farms
and forced labour projects. Malnutrition, slavery, forced labour
and wanton execution in the countryside—later called the ‘killing
fields’—resulted in the death of 2.5 million people, approximately
21 per cent of the then population in Cambodia. Idi Amin, a
military dictator and President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979,
resorted to severe repression, especially against the Asians who
lived in Uganda. Idi Amin’s government was engaged in mass
execution of ‘opposing forces’, severe human rights abuses, and
torture that resulted in the death of nearly five hundred thousand
people. Today, democratically elected governments are sometimes
accused of pursuing state terrorism when they trample on human
rights and engage in political killing of their opponents. Human
rights organizations have levelled charges against several
democratic governments in different parts of the world for the
violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of the
people. A state may indirectly, or directly, help terrorist groups
foment trouble in another country, mainly its adversary. Such acts
also fall in the category of state terrorism.
International Terrorism

Terrorist activities involving citizens of more than one country, and

having transnational impacts, constitute international terrorism. It
is also referred to as ‘cross border terrorism’. If any Indian national
or Indian group is involved in terrorist activites in India, that
would be an instance of domestic terrorism; but if people from
other states join hands with the Indians in carrying out terrorist
activities in India, that would amount to international terrorism.
We are more concerned with international terrorism in the study
of international relations, due to its impact on world politics. The
9/11 terrorist attacks on the US was certainly aided and
masterminded by people across territories, but it had a profound
impact on US security and foreign policies, as also on international
politics. India frequently experiences cross border terrorism when
different terrorist groups from neighbouring countries and
adjacent regions target its military, government officials, and
ordinary citizens. Mumbai witnessed a recent spate of
international terrorism on 26 November 2008 (26/11) when
terrorist groups from a neighbouring state attacked and killed
policemen and ordinary citizens at railway stations, in restaurants,
hotels and roads. Sometimes several terrorist groups working in
different parts of the world join hands to carry out international
terrorism. The Al Qaeda was aided by splinter terrorist groups in
Europe and America, and also by the Talibans, in its 9/11 attacks
on the United States.

The Changing Nature of Contemporary Terrorism

Psychological, socio-economic and ideological factors have been

identified as major causes that push individuals towards terrorist
activities. Researchers have proved that chemical imbalances in the
brain may lead to mental conditions where rage, hatred and
tendencies to defy authority could be noticed in some individuals.
These persons are prone to violence, and may take resort to
terrorism. Among the socio-economic factors, a traumatic and
abused childhood or early life, uncaring families, and extreme
poverty may lead an individual to terrorist activities. Political
ideologies that call for equality in the society, abolition of rich-poor
divide, questioning the authority, and mastering one’s own destiny,
always attracted people’s attention and fomented radicalism.
Individuals, under the magic spell of such political ideologies, may
resort to the unconventional path of terrorism. Since ages, these
psychological, socio-economic and ideological factors have led to
the emergence and growth of terrorism all over the world. But as
far as methods of terrorism are concerned, plenty of changes have
taken place in recent times. Contemporary (post-Second World
War) terrorism is vastly different from conventional (pre-Second
World War) terrorism in its methods and techniques.

Although some scholars4 opine that there is little difference in

techniques between conventional and contemporary terrorism, as
bombings, fire bombings, armed attacks, arsons and kidnappings
are used by both, the arguments put forward by this book would be
different. To begin with, can conventional terrorism think of using
passenger planes and crashing them into high rise towers like the
WTC? Can it think of using satellite phones and computer
technology for terrorist activities? Answers to these questions
would be negative. The techniques of the two differ simply because
more and more sophisticated technologies and weapons are
available to the contemporary terrorist. For instance, in Tokyo,
Japan’s capital, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo released Sarin
Nerve Gas on 20 March 1995 in the subway metro system, killing
twelve people and injuring nearly four thousand. This use of
chemical weapons by a group of religious fanatics brought huge
changes to the techniques used by contemporary terrorists. At
present, speculations are rife in international politics about the
chances of terrorist groups getting hold of the weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs). The face of contemporary terrorism would
certainly undergo drastic changes if such a situation arises. Today,
terrorist groups have their own web sites to propagate their ideas,
something that was unheard of earlier. They also rely more on
media, especially the electronic ones, to make public their views
and to spread threats. The Al Qaeda and many other terrorist
groups use these methods with remarkable regularity. The
contemporary terrorist is sometimes backed by a very large
network spreading across continents. The 9/11 terrorist attack on
the US is a case in point. This network involves personnel, satellite
communications and computer technology. The terrorist attacks
on Mumbai on 26 November 2008 were also carried out by one
such large network. The conventional terrorist lacked such a
sophisticated network.

Terrorism and International Relations Today

The impact of terrorism on international relations today is quite

profound. The issue of terrorism may contribute towards
strengthening or deteriorating relations among states. It may also
bring about changes in security and foreign policies of states.
Further, it could propel adjustments and shifts in policies and
programmes of regional and international organizations.
Terrorism, to begin with, can make or break relations between
states. The issue of terrorism continues to exert negative influence
on the relation between India and Pakistan or Israel and the Arab
states. Both India and Pakistan have been accusing each other of
sponsoring terrorism in their lands. Both have urged the
international community to declare the other state a ‘state
sponsoring terrorism’. On several occasions, the issue of terrorism
deteriorated relations between the two neighbours. For instance,
India cancelled all diplomatic talks for some time as a mark of
protest against Pakistan’s alleged involvement in the 26/11
terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Similarly, relations between Israel and
some Arab states suffered due to terrorist activities by extremist
Arab and Israeli groups. Several such examples could be drawn
from different parts of the world where terrorism has directly or
indirectly influenced deterioration of relations among states.
Conversely, relations among states may be strengthened due to the
menace of terrorism. Two or more states may come close to one
another to combat terrorism. After the 9/11 attack, the US sought
help from many states, especially states of the South Asian region,
to counter terrorist organizations like the Al Qaeda, Talibans,
Lashkar-e-Toiba and others. The US is working in close
cooperation with the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and
India for counter-terrorism purposes. It has been viewing India as
a close strategic partner, mainly after the 9/11 incident. This
American perception helped to give a tremendous boost to bilateral
relations.

States alter their security and foreign policies due to the menace of
terrorism. The American policy of ‘war against terrorism’ emerged
after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Bush (Jr) government also
announced the ‘National Security Strategy’ (NSS) in 2002, and the
‘National Security and Strategic Policy’ (NSSP) in 2004, two
significant security policies after the terrorist attacks. India and
Israel, who did not have diplomatic relations for a long time, are
now engaged in security cooperation to counter the problem of
terrorism. India’s nuclear doctrine had to be reshaped to augment
its security in the face of growing security and terrorist threats
coming from different states and organizations. In fact, every state,
from England to Nigeria, from Japan to Canada, from Australia to
Bangladesh, is on a high security alert now due to the growing
threats of international terrorism; and every state is revamping its
security and foreign policies to counter the increasing challenge
from global terrorism.

Regional organizations like the EU, ASEAN, SAARC, AU and

others are today very much concerned about terrorism. In a
‘Factsheet’ entitled The European Union and the Fight against
Terrorism, published on 9 March 2007, the EU observed:

Terrorism poses a significant threat to the security

of Europe, to the values of our democratic societies
and to the rights and freedoms of European
citizens. Acts of terrorism are criminal and
 unjustifiable under any circumstances. Terrorism
must be countered both at national and
international level. Action by the European Union
has intensified since 9/11, and in particular since
the horrendous attacks in Madrid (2004) and
London (2005).… The EU’s Counter-Terrorism
Strategy covers four strands of work: Prevention,
Protection, Pursuit and Response.5
Similarly, other regional organizations have also adopted newer
policies to counter terrorism. For instance, the SAARC Summit
held in Colombo in August 2008 declared:

The Heads of State or Government strongly

condemned all forms of terrorist violence and
expressed deep concern over the serious threat
posed by terrorism to the peace, stability and
security of the region. They further recognized the
growing linkages between the phenomenon of
terrorism, illegal trafficking in narcotic and
psychotropic substances, illegal trafficking of
persons and firearms and underscored the need to
address the problem in a comprehensive manner.
They reiterated their commitment to strengthen the
legal regime against terrorism by undertaking to
implement all international conventions relating to
combating terrorism to which Member States are
parties, as well as the SAARC Regional Convention
on Suppression of Terrorism and the Additional
Protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on the
Suppression of Terrorism.6
These policy documents reveal the fact that terrorism has indeed
propelled all regional organizations to think afresh about the
security of the region and member-states.

Terrorism threatens international peace and security, as well as

human rights. The United Nations (UN) was very much concerned
about terrorism and searched for appropriate ways to combat it. It
adopted sixteen universal instruments (thirteen instruments and
three amendments) against international terrorism. Through the
 General Assembly, member-states of the UN have been
coordinating counter-terrorism activities and continuing legal
work to fight terrorism. The Security Council has also been active
in countering terrorism through proper resolutions and by
establishing several subsidiary bodies. At the same time, a number
of UN programmes, offices and agencies remained engaged in
specific activities against terrorism. A recent significant UN
instrument against terrorism has been The United Nations Global
Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted by the General Assembly on
8 September 2006.

It is a unique global instrument that will enhance

national, regional and international efforts to
counter terrorism. This is the first time that all
Member States have agreed to a common strategic
approach to fight terrorism, not only sending a clear
message that terrorism is unacceptable in all its
forms and manifestation but also resolving to take
practical steps individually and collectively to
prevent and combat it. Those practical steps include
a wide array of measures ranging from
strengthening state capacity to counter terrorist
threats to better coordinating United Nations
system’s counter-terrorism activities.7
Clearly, the largest international organization responsible for
maintaining international peace and security views terrorism as
the biggest threat to mankind, that may upset the maintenance of
international peace in our times. Terrorism also poses a challenge
to safeguarding of human rights and fundamental freedoms
throughout the world. This growing menace has created ripples in
world politics, and added an altogether new dimension in the study
of international relations.

QUESTIONS

1. How would you define globalization? Analyse different views on globalization.

2. Is the notion of sovereignty of the state in danger due to globalization? Argue your case.
3. Bring out the impact of environmental issues on international politics.
4. Write a note on the significance of energy in international relations today.
5. How would you define terrorism? What are the different types of terrorism?
6. Examine the impact of terrorism on international relations today.
 Bibliography

Athwal, A. 2009. China-India Relations: Contemporay Dynamics.

London: Routledge.
Bacevich, A. J. 2008. The Limits of Power: The End of American
Exceptionalism. New York: Black Inc.
Bailey, K. C. (ed.). 1994. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Costs
Versus Benefits. New Delhi: Manohar.
Bajpai, U. S. (ed.). 1983. Non-Alignment: Perspectives and
Prospects. New Delhi: Lancers Publishers.
Bertallanfy, L. V. 1968. General Systems Theory: Foundations,
Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.
Boulding, K. 1962. Conflict and Defence. New York: Harper
Collins.
Buira, A. (ed.). 2005. The IMF and the World Bank at Sixty.
London: Anthem Press.
Burchill, S., R. Devetak, A. Linklater, M. Paterson, C. Reus-Smit
and J. True. 2001. Theories of International Relations. New York:
Palgrave.
Calvocoressi, P. 2001. World Politics: 1954–2000. New Delhi:
Pearson Education.
Carr, E. H. 1939. The Twenty Years’ Crisis. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Chatterjee, A. 2005. ‘Human Rights and India-U.S. Relations
during the Rao Premiership’, Jadavpur Journal of International
Relations, 9 (1).
———. 2008. ‘Beyond Expectations: Remarkable Development in
India-U.S. Relations during the Gujral Premiership’, Jadavpur
Journal of International Relations, 12 (1).
———. 2009. ‘The UN at Sixty Three: Problems and Prospects of
Reforming a Veteran’, Journal of Management and Social
Sciences, 5(1).
Chin, C. B. 1998. In Service and Servitude: Foreign Female
Domestic Workers and the Malaysian Modernity Project. New
York. Columbia University Press.
Chopra, V. D. 2003. New Trends in Indo-Russian Relations. New
Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.
Cirincione, J. et al. 2005. Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of
Mass Destruction. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
Cohen, S. P. 1994. Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: The
Prospects for Arms Control. New Delhi: Lancer.
———. 2001. India: Emerging Power. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Cooper, A. F., J. English and R. Thakur. 2002. Enhancing Global
Governance: Towards a New Diplomacy? New York: United
Nations University Press.
Cortright, D., L. Gerber and G. A. Lopez. 2002. Sanctions and the
Search for Security: Challenges to UN Action. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner.
Derrida, J. 1974. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Deutsch, K. 1963. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political
Communication and Control. New York: Free Press.
Dharamdasani, M. D. (ed.). 2004. Indo-Japan Relations:
Challenges and Opportunities. New Delhi: Kanishka.
Dickie, J. 2007. The New Mandarins: How British Foreign Policy
Works. London: I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.
Dinan, D. 2004. Europe Recast: A History of European Union.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dutt, V. P. 1999. India’s Foreign Policy in a Changing World. New
Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Eccleston, B., M. Dawson and D. J. McNamara. 1998. The Asia-
Pacific Profile. London: Routledge.
Enloe, C. 1989. Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist
Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
———. 1994. The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the
Cold War. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1997. ‘Margins, Silences, and Bottom-rungs: How to
Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of
International Relations’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski
(eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
———. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of
Militarizing Women’s Lives. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth:
Gallimard.
Frankel, J. 1977. International Relations in a Changing World.
London: Oxford University Press.
Gates, C. L. and M. Than. 2001. ASEAN Enlargement: Impacts
and Implications. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Gheciu, A. 2005. NATO in the New Europe. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Gjelstad, J. 1996. Nuclear Rivalry and International Order. New
Delhi: Sage.
Glassner, M. I. 1998. The United Nations at Work. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Goldstein, J. S. 2003. International Relations (5th Ed.). New
Delhi: Pearson Education.
Guelke, A. 1995. The Age of Terrorism and the International
Political System. New York: St. Martin’s.
Guha-Khasnobis, B. 2004. The WTO, Developing Countries and
the Doha Development Agenda: Prospects and Challenges for
Trade-led Growth. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hampson, F. O. and D. M. Malone. 2002. From Reaction to
Conflict Prevention: Opportunities for the UN System. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Held, D. and D. Mepham. 2007. Progressive Foreign Policy: New
Directions for the UK. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Henning, M. 2002. The New African Initiative and the African
Union: A Preliminary Assessment and Documentation.
Stockholm: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Herz, J. 1958. International Politics in the Atomic Age. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Hix, S. 2005. The Political System of the European Union.
London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hobson, J. A. 1902. Imperialism: A Study. London: Chatham.
Hufbauer, G. C. and J. J. Schott. 2005. NAFTA Revisited.
Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.
Hull, H. 1969. ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical
Approach’, in K. Knorr and J. N. Rosenau (eds), Contending
Approaches to International Relations, Princeton: CQ Press.
Hurrell, A. and N. Woods (eds). 1999. Inequality, Globalization,
and World Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Inoguchi, T. and P. Jain (eds). 2000. Japanese Foreign Policy
Today. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jackson, R. and G. Sorensen. 2003. Introduction to International
Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jentleson, B. W. 2000. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics
of Choice in the 21st Century. New York: W. W. Norton.
Kahol, Y. 2002. SAARC Through the New Millennium. New Delhi:
Anmol Publishers.
Kaplan, L. S. 1999. The Long Entanglement: NATO’s First Fifty
Years. New York: Praeger.
Kaplan, M. A. 1957. System and Process of International Politics.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Kapur, A., Y. K. Malik, H. A. Gould and A. G. Rubinoff (eds).
2002. India and the United States in a Changing World. New
Delhi: Sage.
Kapur, H. 1994. India’s Foreign Policy: 1947–1992: Shadows and
Substance. New Delhi: Sage.
Kawashima, Y. 2005. Japanese Foreign Policy at Crossroads.
Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Keohane, R. O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord
in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Keohane, R. O. and J. Nye (eds). 1972. Transitionalism and World
Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knight, A. W. 2000. A Changing United Nations: Multilateral
Evolution and the Quest for Global Governance. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Krasner, S. D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Laqueur, W. 2001. A History of Terrorism. New Jersey:
Transaction.
Lawson, S. 2004. International Relations. London: Polity.
Lederman, D., W. Maloney and L. Servén. 2005. Lessons from
NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean. Palo Alto, USA:
Stanford University Press.
Linklater, A. 1992. ‘The Question of the Next Stage in International
Relations Theory: A Critical Theoretical Point of
View’, Millennium, 21(1).
Luterbacher, U. and D. F. Sprinz. 2001. International Relations
and Global Climate Change. Boston: MIT.
Mandelbaum, M (ed.). 1998. The New Russian Foreign Policy.
New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.
Mankoff, J. 2009. Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great
Power Politics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
McIntyre, W. D. 2001. A Guide to the Contemporary
Commonwealth. London: Palgrave.
Menon, R. 2004. Weapons of Mass Destruction. New Delhi: OUP.
Misra, K. P. and K. R. Narayanan (eds). 1999. Non-Alignment in
Contemporary International Relations. New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing House.
Mistry, D. 2005. Containing Strategic Missile Proliferation.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Morgenthau, H. J. 1972. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace (5th Indian Edition). Calcutta: Scientific Book
Agency.
Nahar, E. 1991. SAARC: Problems and Prospects. New Delhi:
Sehgal Publishers.
Nas, J. and M. Fernandez-Kelly (eds). 1983. Women, Men, and the
International Division of Labour. New York: State University of
New York Press.
Neack, L. 2003. The New Foreign Policy: U.S. and Comparative
Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Neumann, J. V. and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and
Economic Behaviour. Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press.
Nicholas, H. G. 1975. The United Nations as a Political Institution.
London: Oxford University Press.
Nicholson, M. 2002. International Relations: A Concise
Introduction. New York, Palgrave.
Oman, C. 1994. Globalization and Regionalization: The Challenge
for Developing Countries. Paris: OECD Development Centre.
Onuf, N. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social
Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press.
Palmer, N. D. and H. C. Perkins. 1953. International Relations.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Pande, S. 1994. CTBT: India and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
New Delhi: Cosmo.
———. 1995. Future of NPT. New Delhi: Lancer.
Pant, H. (ed.). 2009. Indian Foreign Policy in a Unipolar World.
London: Routledge.
Partridge, J. A. 2008. The Policy of England in Relation to India
and the East; or, Alexandria. London: Bibliolife.
Paterson, M. 1996. Global Warming and Global Politics. New
York: Routledge.
Peterson, J. and M. Shackleton (eds). 2006. The Institutions of the
European Union. London: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, V. S. and A. S. Runyan. 1993. Global Gender Issues.
Boulder: West View Press.
Petro, N. N. 1997. Russian Foreign Policy: From Empire to
Nation-State. London: Longman.
Pettman, J. J. 1996. Working Women: A Feminist International
Politics. New York: Routledge.
Ferguson, C. D. and W. C. Potter, with A. Sands, L. S. Spector and
F. L. Wehling. 2005. The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism. New
York: Routledge.
Rosenau, J. N. 1961. International Politics and Foreign Policy: A
Reader in Research and Theory. New York: Free Press.
———. 1992. The United Nations in a Turbulent World. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Runyan A. S. and V. S. Peterson. 1991. ‘The Radical Future of
Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory’, Alternatives, 16,
Toronto.
The SAARC Secretariat. From SARC to SAARC: Milestones in the
Evolution of Regional Cooperation, 1–7.
Sassen, S. 1991. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schott, J. J. (ed.). 2000. The WTO After Seattle, Washington DC:
Institute for International Economics.
Schuman, W. and R. L. Stevens (ed.). 2007. Economic Pressures
and the Future. New York: Free Press.
Shapiro, M. J. 1988. The Politics of Representation. London:
Routledge.
Shearman, P. (ed). 1995. Russian Foreign Policy since 1990.
Boulder: West View Press.
Shubik, M. 1954. Readings in Games Theory and Political Theory.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sikkink, K. and M. Keck. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders:
Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Sikri, R. 2009. Challenge and Strategy: Rethinking India’s
Foreign Policy. New Delhi: Sage.
Singham, A. W. 1986. Non-Alignment in an Age of Alignment.
New York: Lawrence Hill and Co.
Smith, J. (ed.). 1990. The Origins of NATO. London: Exeter Press.
Smith, J. E. and S. L. Canby. 1987. The Evolution of NATO with
Four Plausible Threat Scenarios. Ottawa: Canada Department of
Defense.
Snyder, R., H. W. Bruck and B. Sapin. 1954. Decision-Making as
an Approach to the Study of International Politics. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Standing, G. 1992. ‘Global Feminization Through Flexible Labor’,
in C. K. Wilber and K. P. Jameson (eds), The Political Economy of
Development and Underdevelopment. New York: McGraw-Hill
College.
Stasiulis, D. and A. B. Bakan. 1997. ‘Negotiating Citizenship: The
Case of Foreign Domestic Workers in Canada’, Feminist Review,
No. 57.
Steans, J. 1998. Gender and International Relations: An
Introduction. New Brunswick: Own.
Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontent. New York: W.
W. Norton and Company.
Stohl, M. and G. A. Lopez (ed.). 1988. Terrible Beyond
Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism. Westport:
Greenwood.
Subrahmanium, K. 1986. Nuclear Proliferation and International
Security. New Delhi: Lancer.
Sutter, R. G. 2007. Chinese Foreign Relations: Power and Policy
Since the Cold War. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Swanson, T. M. (ed.). 1998. The Economics and Ecology of
Biodiversity Decline: The Forces Driving Global Change. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sylvester, C. 1992. ‘Feminist Theory and Gender Studies in
International Relations’, International Studies Notes, 16(1).
———. 1994. Feminist Theory and International Relations in a
Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teslik, L. H. 2008. NAFTA’s Economic Impact. New York: Council
of Foreign Relations.
Tessler, M. and I. Warriner. 1997. ‘Gender, Feminism and
Attitudes Toward International Conflict: Exploring Relationships
with Survey Data from the Middle East’, World Politics, No. 49.
Tickner, J. A. 1997. ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled
Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International
Studies Quarterly, 41(4).
Upreti, R. C. (ed.). 2000. SAARC: Dynamics of Regional
Cooperation in South Asia. New Delhi: Kalinga.
US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.
2008. Top US Export Markets: Free Trade Area and Country
Fact Sheet. Washington DC: US Government Printing Press.
Walker, R. B. J. 1992. Inside/Outside: International Relations as
Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1995. ‘International Relations and the Concept of the
Political’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds), International Relations
Theory Today. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Waltz, K. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis.
New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Weber, C. 1995. Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State
and Symbolic Exchange, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weintraub, S. 2004. NAFTA’s Impact on North America: The
First Decade. Washington DC: CSIS Press. Wendt, A. 1992.
‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics’, International Organisation, 6(2).
———. 1995. ‘Constructing International Politics’, International
Security, Vol. 20, No. 1. Washington DC.
———. 1999. Social Theory of International Relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wheare, K. C. 1960. The Constitutional Structure of the
Commonwealth. New York: Clarendon Press. Whittaker, D. J.
1997. United Nations in the Contemporary World. London:
Routledge.
Woods, N. 1996. Explaining International Relations Since 1945.
New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2006. The Globalizers: IMF, The World Bank and Their
Borrowers. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
 Ying, M., M. Kau and S. H. Marsh (eds). 1993. China in the Era of
Deng Xiao Ping. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

WEB SITES

Commonwealth of Nations: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/.
NATO: http://www.nato.int/.
UNO: http://www.un.org/.
On NPT from the UN web
site: http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/.
CTBT: http://www.ctbt.org/.
FMCT: http://www.fmct.org/.
MTCR: http://www.mtcr.info/english/index/html/.
PBBW: http://www.pbbw.org/.
OPCW: http://www.opcw.org/.
SAARC Secretariat: http://www.saarc.sec.org/.
ASEAN Secretariat: http://www.aseansec.org/.
EU Secretariat: http://www.europa.eu/.
AU Secretariat: http://www.africa-union.org/.
NAFTA Secretariat: http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/.
WTO: http://www.wto.org/.
IMF: http://www.imf.org/.
World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/.
CHAPTER 11

1. See, in this context, Harish Kapur, India’s Foreign Policy 1947–

92: Shadows and Substance (New Delhi: Sage, 1994), 22.

2. See, in this context, Dennis Kux, Estranged Democracies: India

and the United States—1941–1991 (New Delhi: Sage, 1994), 208.

3. See, in this context, Dennis Kux, Estranged Democracies, 381.

4. M. Granger Morgan, K. Subrahmanyam, K. Sundarji, and Robert

M. White, ‘India and the United States’, The Washington
Quarterly, Vol. 18(2), Spring 1995, 161.

5. See, in this context, Aneek Chatterjee, ‘Beyond Expectations:

Remarkable Development in India-U.S. Relations During the
Gujral Premiership’, Jadavpur Journal of International Relations,
Vols 11–12(2008), 25–46.
 6. European Commission:
Trade, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-
relations/countries/india/.

7. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of

India, http://www.meaindia.nic.in/.

8. Ibid.

9. US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Service, http://www.

census.gov/foreign-trade/.

10. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of

Commerce and Industry, Government of India.

11. For all Sino-US trade statistics,

see http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/.

12. Xinhua, the Chinese News Agency

13. Ibid.

14. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, http://www.mofa.go.jp/.

15. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of

India, http://www.meaindia.nic.in/.

16. Ibid.

17. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Fact Sheet on

Japan, http://www.mea.nic.in/.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. ‘British Foreign Policy Since 1997’, Research Paper 08/56

(London: House of Commons Library, 2008).

 Copy
 Add Highlight
 Add Note

CHAPTER 12
1. N. R. Narayana Murthy, ‘The Impact of Economic Reforms on
Industry in India: A Case Study of the Software Industry,’ in K.
Basu (ed.), India’s Emerging Economy: Performance and
Prospects in the 1990s and Beyond (New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2004), 217.

2. Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontent (New York: W.

W. Norton and Company, 2002), 247.

3. See, for instance, Kingsbury Benedict and Andrew Hurrell

(eds), The International Politics of the Environment (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992). Also, D. H. Meadows, D. L.
Meadows and J. Randers, Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global
Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future (Post Mills, VT:
Chelsea Green Publishing, 1992).

4. See in this context, P. R. Viotti and M. V. Kauppi, International

Relations and World Politics: Security, Economy, Identity (New
Delhi: Pearson Education, 2007), 283.

5. The EU Council Secretariat, Brussels, 9 March 2007.

6. The SAARC Secretariat, Fifteenth SAARC Summit: Declaration;

retrieved from http://www.saarc-
sec.org/data/summit15/summit15declaration.htm/ on 13 August
2009.

7. As posted on the UN web

site, http://www.un.org/terrorism/strategy-counter-
terrorism.shtml/. Retrieved on 13 August 2009.

Copyright © 2010 Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Licensees of Pearson Education in South Asia.
No part of this eBook may be used or reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without the publisher’s prior written consent.
This eBook may or may not include all assets that were part of the
print version. The publisher reserves the right to remove any
material present in this eBook at any time, as deemed necessary.
ISBN 9788131733752
ePub ISBN 9788131799178
Head Office: A-8(A), Sector 62, Knowledge Boulevard, 7th Floor,
NOIDA 201 309, India.
Registered Office: 11 Local Shopping Centre, Panchsheel Park, New
Delhi 110 017, India